The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-03 00:00:00

SHORTREED V. CREEK.

This was an action on a guarantee for 451. The
plaintiff was a printer in Edinburgh, and had printed
certain books for the son of the defendant, against
whom he had a claim of 45/. The son gave a pto-
missory note, which became due on the Ist of May.
This bill was not paid, and on the 11th of that
month the defendant wrote to the plaintiff the fol-
lowing note :—" You will be so good as to withdraw
the promissory note,and I will see you at Christmas,
when you shall receive from me the amount of it,
together with the memorandum of my son's, making
in the whole 451." It was objected for the defend-
ant that this guarantee was void for uncertainty, as
it did not state the consideration for which it was
given. It did not appear on the face of the gua-
rantee whether the promissory note, therein referred
to was due, so that there was nothing to show
whether this guarantee was given on .a 'past or for
a future consideration.

Verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a motion upon
:he construction of the guarantee.

EDWARDS V. GRAY.

This was an action on an attorney's bill. The
plaintiff charged for two attendances, and for the
expenditure of one shilling. It was proved that the
defendant had consulted the plaintiff in a case in
which the defendant wished to bring an action
against a third person. The plaintiff advised him
hot to bring the action, and the defendant had ever
since refused to make any compensation to the
plaintiff for the trouble he had taken.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages one shilling.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 1.

EYTON V. DES VEAUX, BART.

In this case, which respected the amount of a
policy of life insurance, and which was not concluded
when we went to press on Saturday, the Jury gave
a verdict for the plaintiff in the full amount sought
—3OOl.

PREROGATIVE COURT, FEB. 1.

(Before Sir Joint NwuoLL.)
CAMPBELL V. NUGENT.

This was a suit to try the validity of a paper pro-
pounded as the last will of Mrs. Maria Campbell'
deceased. The will was propounded by the husband
of the deceased, and opposed by children the issue
of her first marriage with Captain Nugent. The
deceased had considerable property left her, which
was settled upon her on her marriage with Mr.
Campbell, she having sole power of distribution.
She made a will by which her children would have
the property among them; but in November, 1832,
she executed another paper giving the whole of it
to her husband. It was alleged on behalf of the
three children by the first husband that this paper
was obtained by Mr. Campbell by force and
compulsion.
Dr. LUSHINGTON and Dr. ADDAMS (for Mr.
Campbell) were heard in support of the paper. The
lady had not attempted to revoke the paper, and the
Court must pronounce for it.
The KING'S ADVOCATE was about to address the
Court against the paper, when
Sir J. NumoLt. had enough before him to decide
the case, and, after referring to the facts, said the
result of the evidence showed that the deceased did
not make the will of her free control. He must pro-
nounce upon the Tiaper and condemn•the party pro-
pounding it in costs.
On the motion of the Proctor for the husband a
minute was made that he had applied to rescind the
conclusion of the case.

An appeal, it is understood, will be promoted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE

O►t Saturday a young clumsy, red-cheeked York-
shireman, named Robert Davis, was brought before
the LORD MAYOR, whom he eyed with evident
astonishment, charged with having fancied Aldga'e
High-street, in the filthiest spot among.t the butchers'
shambles, for a bed on the preceding night.
Inspector M'Clean stated that the defendant ap-
peared in the neighbourhood in a woful state of in-
toxication, and that, after having tried various parts
of the street, he at last fixed upon the dirtiest place
for taking his night's rest in. Several attempts
were made to bring him to himself, but the spirit of
rum had taken hold of him, and it was found ne-
cessary to carry him to the station-house, where the
only account he could give of himself was that he
was a traveller.

The LORD MAYOR—How did it happen that
you got into so beastly a state of drunkenness ?
Defendant—Eh ! Why I duan't know just, but I
bin at sea, you see.

The Loip MAYOR—At sea ! You don't look like
a seaman. Defendant—Noa, Ibe a clothworker,
from Yorkshire; but just cum from sea. Feyther
pied me a fort'n to go to Merikey, and I goes off to
Portsmouth. Well, I goes into ship, and ship goes
off four days ago. _ _ _

The LORD MAYOR—You haven't been in Ame-
rica since, have you ? Defendant—Eli! noa; I
ari't bin there, and I an't agoing now, for I be going
back agin into Yorkshire.—(A laugh.)
The LORD MAYOR—What's that for? Defen-
dant—Eh! why you see the ship rowled, and be
bonged if I could eat a bit; so the sailors, when
they seed I couldn't eat nothing, offered me a piece
of bacon with al the lean cut off, and I'am domned
if that didn't make me worse.—(Great laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR—And did you eat the bacon ?
Defendant—Eat it! Noa. I tried a bit, for they
toald me 'twould cure the rowling of the ship; but
I'm domned if it didn't make the ship for to pitch
more, and it made my inside for to pitch too.—
(Laughter.)
The LoRD MAYOR—And so because you lost
your appetite you were determined to lose your
passage? Defendant—Eh ! My passage! Why if
I couldn't eat how could I live all the way to
Merikey ? Well, I corned tip to Lunnun, and I
sets up at the Swan-wi-two•Necks, and yesterday I
took my passage to Nottingham, and by rights I
ought to be there now, and not here, you see.
The LORD MAYOR--It is all your own fault.
Why did you get drunk ? I suppose it was be-
cause you had got back your appetite. Defendant
(opening his mouth and giving a hearty laugh)—
Yos, yos. I thowt the sea rowled it away ; but
I'm domned if it arn't come back bigger nor ever.—
(Great laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR—What will your father say to
all this ? He'll be glad to see you back, I dare say.
Defendant (reflecting, probably for the first time)—
Feyther glad, damned if I know.
The LORD MAYOR—Have you got a wife ? De-
fendant—Yos, yos.
The LoRD MAYOR—She will probably receive
you with open arms ? Defendant—She caunt open
her arms. Why mon, she's dead.
The inspector said that the defendant had in his
pocket 18/. 17s. 6d. when taken to the station-
house. It appeared also that upon leaving the ship
at Portsmouth he sold his provisions for the sum of
ten shillings, and, so thoroughly disgusted was he
with the sea, that immediately upon landing lie got
upon a coach which was setting off for London.
The LORD MAYOR—WeII, my good fellow, I
shall discharge you, and I advise you to get down
to Yorkshire as quickly as possible. Defendant—

Yos, yos, I'll go fast enough, but not before I tucks
in a diur;er.—(Laughter.)
The defendant, whose performances throughout
would have thrown lus!re upon the brightest days
of the immortal Jack Emery, then left the Justice-
room amidst laughter, in which he loudly
.joined.
T. Godfrey, W. llfugford, and J. Keyes, were
charged with having robbed Mr. Child, of Thames-
street, seedsman, of a quantity of seeds and other
articles.

The LORD MAYOR committed all the prisoners
for trial.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Mr. Westwood, a silversmith, living in Princes-
street, was charged by Mr. Thompson with having
presented a pistol at him, with a threat that he
would blow his brains out.

The complainant said about nine months ago he
purchased a watch of the defendant for .51. Finding
the watch did not go well he took it to the shop
of the defendant, and stated what was the matter
with it. The defendant promised that he would
put it in repair for nothing; and relying upon that
promise, he left it with him. When he called for
it a few days ago he saw the defendant's shop-
man, who handed the watch over to him, and de-
manded 10s. for the repairs. Complainant told
him what Mr. Westwood had agreed to ; upon
-which the shopman requested the watch to be
handed back to him for a moment, and when he
got possession of it he refused to give it up without
his employer's sanction. Witness called again,
and, on seeing Mr. Westwood, he demanded his
watch. Mr. Westwood said he must have 10s.
first ; and witness then declared his determination
not to quit the shop without his watch. Mr. West-
wood upon this snatched up a pistol and presented
it at him; telling him' he would blow out his brains
if he did not leave the shop. Complainant was
much alarmed at the threat, and as it was re-
peated he thought it best to pay the fine of 10s.
and get his watch back.
Mr. Westwood, in reply, had made no agreement
to repair the watch, which had been very badly
used, for nothing. The complainant insisted upon
having it, and was preparing to force it from the
glass case, where there were about fifty watches,
when he took up the pistol, which was not loaded,
in order to intimidate him.
Mr. DYER said it was clear no real violence was
intended by the defendant, though the taking up
of the pistol was an imprudent act.
The defendant consented to pay the expenses, and
the matter ended.