The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-06 00:00:00

GREAT FIRE IN FINSBURY.

Last night, between the hours of &ght and nine
o'clock, a fire that destreyed a great dee' of valuable
pie party, and which at midnight was far from being
eetirely extinguished, broke nut on the premises
belonging to Messrs. James, Wild, and Co,, extensive
upholsterers, cabinetmakers, and feather merchants,
situate in Worship-s'reet and the Curtain•road,
Shoreditch. The property in question was of vast
extent, and formed six houses in the last-named
thoroughfare, whilst another turned the angle into
Worship-street, and the whole stretched backwards
between 200 and 300 feet into Gillard's-fields. The
premises were divided into sundry warehouses for
depositing the varieus articles in the trade according
to their respective classifications. Those compart-
ments at the tear were termed the mattress and flack
del (its ; the whole of the buildings on the ground-
floor were used as show room', and contained a
most costly stock of furniture, cabinets, &c. The
upper floors of the corner house in Worship-
street were occupied as the feather stores, whilst the
one adjoinime, in the Curtain-road, was set apart as
the ironmongery and bright steel departments. The
other warehouses contained the u.kual stocks of beds,
mattresses, du% Owing to the highly inflammable
character of the goods in the various warehouses, it
soonthe fire. became apparent to the inhabitants that unless
re could be immediately checked a fearful con-
fligration would ensue. Consequently every endea-
vour WAS made to cut off the extension of the flames
sd•tiartii73ns.thetinfortunatelv, time boat in sending
however,information and in a space of
time incredibly brief, tinge sheets of fl,me could ho
seep rolling from the windows of the warehouses in
Gilard's.fi.ld•a which commuoicated almost simul-
CtaunritetTni•Y to the whole of the upper warehouses in the
road and Worshio-street. Two fire-escapes
belongince to the Royal Society, under the direction
of Mr. Beddeley, eulickly arrived, and as no one con-
nected with the preini,es could at that time be seen,
it was feared that a great loss of life had ensued, and
many of the sirctators would not be convinced to the con-
errvaerryy roolnl the
noton
conductorswhen they found out from
the general contents that no one lived On the premisee.
fire, of the escapes had entered
The engines of the London Brigade, West of &low.]
Company, and parish attended with all possible expe_
ditien, when the firemen found the fames ascending
some dozen feet above the surrounding houses ; they
therefore directed the water from the different
engines in such directions as to cut off the further
spread of the fearful element. Daring that time a
number of persons were engaged in removing the
furniture, &c., from the show-rooms on
the ground
fl tor. During the progress of the conflagration a
waggon filled with beds or mattresses was drawn
out from the gateway, but the contents were blazing
most furiously, and it was not until a great part of
the freight was destroyed that the fire could be extin-
guished. The firemen, under the direction of their
superior officers, laboured without the least intermis-
sion until past midnight, when they succeeded in get-
Ain); the mastery to some extent over the fire, but it
W.t,!t. then far from ()sing extinguished, although no
daee-ger, existed of any further extension. The damage
doelei';the foreman of the premises informed our re-
portet,would amount to eolete thousands of pounds, to
saymothiOg of the injury to the premises. The whole
of the extensive premises at the rear are gutted, and
the entire length of buildings in front as far as the
ground floors burnt. How the fire originated is a
mystery. The men had left off work, and the pre-
mises had not been closed more than 20 minuteswhen
the unwelcome discovery was made. It is to be re-,
grytted that the firm vras only partially insured. '

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlll—Lerves, Avyust 5.
The commission for the county of Sussex WAS opened
on Monday afternoon by Chief Justice Jervis, and his
Larcishiv afterwards charged the grand jury and pro-
ceeded to try some of the prisonyrs. The gaol calendar
is ritAat-tr heavier than usual, there being 45 prisoners for
tried. 01 the civil side only two causes were entered,
one ti special jury cause, and the other an undefended
common jury.
CROWN SIDE —(Before Chief Justice JEnvis.)
William Henry Challis, 13, errand boy. pl.,atleti Guilty
to an indictment oh rging, him with having unlawfully
thrown ta certsin substance into one cf the carriages tra-
velling upon the Brighton Railai and thereby endan-
gering the safety of the passengers.
Sentence was defrrred.
Elizqbetl. Widiens, 20, was indicted for wilful and
corrupt peijury.
Mr. Cressy prosecuted, and Mr. WOCAlett was counsel
for the deleuce.

The pe: jury imputed to the defendant was, that at the
Lent assie-s for this county. in 1850, she had fal-ely
charged illree men named Waters, Lewis, and Wi
son with having committed a robbery, with violence,
upon her. Upon this occasion she swore that on the
28th ofSepteu,her. 1849, while she was on her way from
'c.ialehurAt to Cranhrook, she was attacked by the three
men, who ki:ocked her down and robbed her of a purse
coetainir, a sous reign and other money, and upo❑ this
evidence they were all convicted and sentenced to be
transported for fourteen years. The prisoners were sub-
equenily removed to the Penitentiary, in pursuance of
their sentence, and, in consequence of representations
that were made to them by the authorities, inquiries
were made, the result of which was that the present
charge was preferred against the defendant.
The three prisoners who had been convicted were
examined to prove that they did not rub the defendant,
as .tie had represented, and there was some little contir•
mation of their story in the evidefee of the daughter of
a farmer,. named Cheeseman, who resided near tae place
where the robbery was alleged to have been committed,
and who stated that she heard the prosecutor call out
that she had lost her money before the three men came
up to her, and also that none of the men ran away in the
wood close by after the occurrence. It appear. d, how-
ever, that the defendant was very drunk at the time, and
that she went to a public. house close by immediately
aftrrwards, and told the same story she did at the trial,
and that ,g he had all along persisted in the truth of her
statement.

ThE, CHIEF JI7STICE, at the close of the case for the
urosucutiori, ► xprtssed an opinion that the evidence was
hardly sufficient to justify the jury in c ming to the
conclusion that the defendant hair wil.ully and corruptly
,worn what she knew to be false. The defendant was
in liquor at the time, end it was probble Oat she might
have made a miAake as to the parties who had robbed her.
Mr. CaaitsT, upon this ll:Hit/WIWI from the Court,
withdrew fr: m the prosecution, and
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT—Warwick, Aug. 4.
CIVIL BIDE.—(I etore Ir. Baron PAR KE and a

Common Jury.)
RICHARDS v. RIITHERF.:%RD.

This was as autiou of crin con., to which the de-
Eal,nt pleaded " Not guilty, and leave and licence."
Mr. Sergeant and Mr. A. R. Adams were
coutmel tor the plaintiff; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr.
Wilmore, Q C., for the defendant.

The phtin-tiff was formerly engaged at Nottingham as
an agent for the sale of lace, and in consequence of the
falling-L,ff of that business ho had afterwards kept a
commercial bearding-house, which was a good deal fre-
quented by the defendant, who was an owner of stone
quarriere gat Wicgerwor:h, in Derbyshire. Ia the month
of March last the plaintiff sailed for America, and
was absent from the country rather more than three
months. Immediately after his departure the plain-
tifl'a wife aid the defendant went to Birmingham,
where they opened a provision shop. The plain-
dff's four children and the wife's sister were brought
to that house; end just before Easter the eldest
daughter died. The business was managed by the
plaintiff's wife, but the defendant was a frequent visitor
at the house, and on all those occasions they lived to-
gether without any concealment as man and wife. On
Easter Mondsy, the day after the daughter's funeral,
they went away together to a coif& e•house in Bull-street,
and there-remained for two or three days; after which
they made an excursion to London to inspect the won-
ders of the Great Exhibition. Soon after they had re-
turned to :he provision-shop, a letter was received from
the plaintiff, bearing the New York poet-mark, the effect
of which was that in a few days the wife and the defen-
daut eloped, the wife's sister being left iu charge of the
shop and the children. The wife's sister was the prin-
eipel witness for the plaintiff; but, on cross-examina-
tion, albs admitted that she had never remonstrated
aher with her :00er or the defendant up-A.l the gross
depravity of their conduce. Upon her admis-
sions, also, both the plaintiff arid his wife ep-
ee:Axed to have lad very inuinora! lives; and, upon one
occasion, at Last, to have indulged in mutual
Horns of a very iff nsivo kind. Several witnesses were
celled for the defendant, who, by iaference to particular
instances, strongly confirmed this view of the plaintifi's
character, and for ihe purpose of supporting the plea of
leave end licence-, it was s'eown that tne plaintiff, shortly
before his departure. had permitted the defendant to
cake his wile to Birmingham tor the purpose of finding
there a shop suitable to her circumstances, and that the
expeeees of this journey had been defrayed by the de-
fiThdant; but the plaintiff himself had supplied money
for the purpose of taking the shop, and had asked the de-
fendant to stand his friend iu the matter. After the
action had been commenced the defendant's attorney
effered "to buy peace" by giving the plaintiff 251. and
the stock remaining in the shop, but this offer was
rejected

Mr. Sergeant MILLER having replied,
The Learned JUDGE bummed up, and the jury re-
turned a verdict for the pluintiff—Damagea, 151.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—Bodmin, Aug. 4.
The commission was opened here on Saturday by
Lord Campbell and Mr. Justice Coleridge. Yesterday
i her Lordships attended Divine service, and this morn-
ing the business of the as,iz9 commenced. In the civil
court, in which Mr. Justice Coleridge sat, there was,
for the present circuit, a very heavy cause list, there
being no less than eight causes entered; three, however,
were undefended, and a third was settled. One case
had excited conAiqi ruble interest, and was the following:

SPRY, RtIT , V. HOCIIIN.

Mr. M. Smith anti Mr. Coleridge were counsel for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Smirks for the (It-
tencl4nt.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Sir Samuel
Spry, who was a candidate for the representation of
liodmin at every election between 1832 and 1847, to re-
ouvtl 271. for principal and interest due upon a promis•
sort' note for 20/. which the defendant had given to the
plaintiff; for, as it was alleged, a loan of that sum in the
year 1813.
____• _ _ _ _

- The defendant pleaded several pleas—lat. That he did
not make the note. 2dly. That the money was given as a
bribe for a vote the defendant had given for Sir Samuel
Spry ut the election in 1843, and for a vote he was to
give for him at a future 4lection;ly, that he (the de-
fendant) bad paid the money; 4thly, that the plaintiff
bud discharged him trim it; and sthly, that he did not
make the promise.
For the plaintiff the promissory note was proved to
have been signed by the defendent, aud was put in and
read. It was dated the 21st of June, 1843, some time
snifter the election for that year.
For the defendant it was contended that the 201. was
given as a bribe to the defendant, a grocer ie this town,
iu consequence of hia having voted for Sir Samuel Spry
at the election of 1843, and to induce him to vote for him
at the nest election, and that the signing the note was
merely to hold the defendant liable :n case he broke his
promise. The defendant had not paid any interest on the
note, but at the election in 1847 he split his vote, voting
fer Spry and Lacey. The election was won by Wylde
and Lacey. lu 1848 Sir Samuel Spry presented a peti-
tion to the House of Commons against the return of
Wylde and Lacey. but the p,tition was dismissed, and
very shortly after that the plaintiff caused an action to
be brought against the defendant upon the note. It was
then submitted that it wide clear the money W%S given as
a bribe, and therefore the note was void, and de-
ferrlant would be entitled to a verdict, The following
was the evidence adduced:— _

d Bray—l am town c►eik of Bodrain. In 1841
the c 1( fendaot voted for Vivian and Leieerater against
Spry, but in 1843 he voted fur Spry. In 1847 he voted
for Spry and Lacey. There wss a petition in April,
1848, presented to the House of Commons by Spry
against the election of Wylde and L'icry. Mr. Cum-
mins drew this note; he acted as agent for Spry in 1843
and 1847.

Cross-examined—Mr. Cummins is the present mayor
of this town, and his father is the old.st attorney in the
county. It, is difficult to say of what politics Lord Lei-
cester wriA; he was a nondescript sort of a man. Sir
ee, th,adoitiii
nduatvs
vary
Cary:
twz 1n in aloes. grocer.s
Samuel Spry was a Radical when be first came here, but
afterwards turned Conservative and Protectionist. The
Re-examined—The agents are generally very re spect-
da
be lit
am an attorn©y
I anent have
fto'rk
lsrpormy
I am a little deaf in one ear. I
of this town, aid have witnessed many
lelecateio:in,ds hters e.an
them. Spry was a candidaateent an activen Ca" i"
and 18-17. I knew Hoelain. e had
ii co I knew him. He voted for Spry in 1843. I
inlBb: 2el
n 8 4 to
1 is, Ivl 880 44t
t 37,
r.,
ewvaesrattorney for Pearce, who applied to me with refe-
reaiceo
ttto)mnycl(asfiimeehaebhoaudt
int: .Ile
upon
asked
to him for the interest of a mortgage. Hochiny
applying
if Ispwryaswcoonushitarnutlr.
chafe the Golden Lion. I told him I did not think it
would bUit Spry '6 parpotie. He then said that he cou'd
came
not raise the interest. He wished to kuow whether I
would negotiate a loan of 201. for him, and he mentioned
Spry's name. At the previous election the deL__,
Matra
came to Spry, and told him he intended to support him.
I told Lim I would apply to Spry about a loan. I re-
ferred to his solicitors. Smith and Roberts, of Truro.
On the 9th of Jui.,r, 1843, I had an interview with Mr.
Smith. Ile knew liochiu had . voted for Spry. The
result was that the money was remitted to me. I spoke
to Mr. Smith upon the subject of other loans to other

voters, and I in consequence had communications with
other voters. 1 adviuced money to fire voters altoge.
ther—one was 251., and the others were 201. I com-
municated to Hoch] that be might have the loan,
and I gave him 201. It was understood he was
to give his promissory note for it. I told
hial is he would give his promissory note I
would ask Sir Samuel to hnd him tho money. I
kept the note until it was sat for by Smith end It,berts.
in cot!Ftquer.ea if the splitting of votes the contest be•
came het vreen 1.4',..c0y and Spry. He was annoyed at los-
ing the eke, on. I think the note was sent to Smith and
Bober:4 in 1848. I bad nothing to do with applying for
the in;ereA though the note remained in my desk. I
do not kno,v how you manage yi.ur notes (at Li.keard).
I kilt all the notes, and handed them over in 1848. I
ca9not tell whether all the five voted for Spry alone.
CroJa-exani'.ned—l canvassed Hochin in 1?47. There
was no promiie made to him of any money for giving
his vote, nor any conversation of the. kind. There was
nothing said about any election rat the time of the loan.
I had no authority to lend but upon what I thought good
sccuriy, and I considered the note good security. One
of the other notes was paid.
10 examined—l should be very sorry to be instru-
mental in speaking to any voter on the subject of his
vote as regards any c)rrupt motive. I have been an
agent at ail the elections since 18:31 I never held out
any promise to any voter, or heard of. any such thing,
either at Bodmin or Litkeard. No action was brought
against either of these five till after the petition was
dismissed, in 1849. I delivered up all the notes at the
same time.

Mr. Smith, for the defendanT .nred that this was,
in fact, an undefended cause, and that there was not
the least pretence for the plea set up.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, in summing up, said that un-
less the defendant could establish one of his pleas, the
verdict must pass for the plaintiff, and of course that
which the defendant undertook to prove he had the bur-
den of proof cast upon him, and he was bound to make
it out. The nature of the defence was this, be said—
you call upon me for the payment of a promissory note,
as if you had lent me money, whereas the substance of
the transaction was this—you gave me 201., either in
consideration of the vote I had given for you, or is con-
eideratioo of a vote you expected I should give, and
then, haviug done that in order to disguise and conceal
it from the world, it was treated nominally as a loan,
and I gave you the promissory note as security, as if
there had been a loan; but, in truth, there never was
any loan at all, and it was a gift. Tho question, there-
fore, for the jury was, whether the defendant had made
it out; they were not to take it upon guess, but to de-
termine whether it had been proved.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
CROWN COURT.
Lord Campbell presided in this court. The calendar
contained the names of 20 prisoners. The charges are
-some of thorn of a very serious nature.
William Bartle as indicted for sending letters to
Joseph TheIEIRS, of Mullion, in this county, threatening
to burn and destroy the property of him, the said
Joseph Thomas.
Tnis prisoner was indicted and tried at the last as-
sizes for a similar offence, when it was fully reported;
he was then acquitted upon that charge. There were se-
veral similar iedictments against him; but in conse-
quence of the prisoner's sister having written letters to
the Chief Baron and the jury, his Lordship directed that
the trial should be postponed to the present assizes; and
this morning the prisoner was put upon his trial, when
the same circumstances were adduced against him. Be
was convicted end sentenced to 15 years transportation.