The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-15 00:00:00

MAY l5, 1851.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

Mr. Hawkins examined—l heard that the plaintiff
was hying with the defendant as his housekeeper.
I visited her at Cambridge terrace, and afterwards
at Bayswater, three or tour times. That was about
1843 or 1844. He treated her with respect—very much
so. Alter she was turned out I never spoke to Le
Blanc.

Cross-examined—l did not know Elizabeth Cutting
before she came to me at Clapham. I thought she was
a married woman before she first came. I understood
she was married. I told Le Blanc so. He did not say
he wi,uld pay her 1001. on her marriage. I knew that at
that time she bal summoned him to the county court for
wages— for about 111. or 12/. When the spoke of offer-
ing her 100/. he did not say anything about her giving
up a gild watch arid some pawn tickets. He said she
ba,d taken a gold watch. She told me she had taken
it by his wish, for he bad ❑o money. He lived in a very
nice house in Bayswater—a 10-roomed house. She
was a servant, but did not act as on,. There were two
other servants in the house. I know Panter, her brother-
in-law. Ido not know from her that be and she broke
into Le Blauc's house at Bayswater. She told me that
she had been taken by the policeman before the magis-
trate. She said she was taken for breaking a skylight.
When the defendant spoke of the 1001 he did not com-
plain that he was annoyed by other men coming to his
house after her.

216
274

Re-examined—During the whole time I ever saw him,
he never said or insinuated that any other man had had
intercourse with her. No other man ever did go after
her. That I firmly believe. At one time he treated her
with all the kindness and attention of a man about to be
married to a woman. She told me that on one occasion
she went to him and told him she had no money. He
said he had none then to give her, and she must take his
watch to pawn. When she was tiken before the magis-
trate be said Lo Blanc ought to give her 2001.
Mr. Lusts said that after the evidence which had been
given he was willing to consent to a verdict for the
plaintiff; with damages fur 2504

A verdict Nvai accordingly taken for that amount.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
Thomas Reed, aged 35, wine merchant, was indicted
'or feloniously torging an acceptance to a bill of ex-
change for 35/. 4s. 6d., with intent to defraud John
Symmons.
Mr. W. Cooper prosecuted, and Mr. Parry defended
the prisoner.
Mr. Symmons, the prosecutor, deposed that he carried
on the business of a wine merchant under the firm of
Symmons and Son, in Fenchurch-street. Their firm
had been in the habit of doing business with Messrs.
Reed and Co., wine merchants, at Bath, and on the 21
of April the prisoner introduced himself to him as Mr.
flunnas Reed, a member of the firm, and believing him
to be that gentleman, they entered into a transaction
t'or the purchase, by the prisoner, of twelve dozen of
champagne on account of the Bath firm. At this time
there was a balance of about 8/. due from Messrs. Reed,
and the prisoner requested him to draw a bill of ex-
change for that sum, and also for the value of the
champagne, and he did so, and sent the bill and a de-
livery order for the champagne to 28, Bloomsbury-
street, and in due course of post the bill came back,
nearing the acceptance of " Thomas Reed, jun." He
had seen Mr. Thomas Reed, of the Bath firm, on pre-
vious occasions, and the prisoner resembled him so much
that he had no doubt, when he saw him in the counting..
house, that he was that gentleman.
Mr. Thomas Reed deposed that he carried on business
as a wine merchant at B Att. The prisoner was his to in
brother, and his name was William. He had been a
member of the firm for some time, but the partnership
was dissolved about four years ago, and he had no autho-
my to accept any bills on acc,,unt of the firm since that
period. The bill now produced was a forgery, and he
had no dount that the acceptance was in the handwriting
of the prisoner.
By Mr. PARRY—Witness's handwriting was not at all
similar to that or the prisoner. After the partnership
was dissolved the prisoner bad no authority to accept
bills, but he used to assist in the counting-house and
kok over the hooks. He never received any remunera-
. tion for this service. He was not aware of anything that
could have ()petaled upon the mind of the prisoner to
induce him to suppose that he had authority to draw
such a bill. He tied never had any quarrel with his
brother, and they had always been on good terms. Wit-
ness had nothing whatever to do with this bill, either
directly or indirectly.
Mr. PARRY, in his address to the jury for the defence,
said that whatever decision might eventually be arrived
at, it wes impossible to deny that it was a very melan-
choly spectacle to see one brother coming forward and
giving evidence against Imo' her on a charge of so serious
a kind. He had no instructions, and the circumstances
would not justify him in stating that Mr. Reed was not
speaking the truth, but he should oontend that, under
the peculiar circumstances of the case, and taking into
consideration the anomalous position of the prisoner in
connexion with the firm, the jury would be perfectly
t
justified in coming to the conclusion that there
was
heard
sufficient evidence to satisfy them that the prisoner
eba bad
committed the offence of forgery. They had h n
that for a considerable time he hadbeuehnur
charge was mademember of
the firm, and yet, when this serious
against him, the only witness h
to his handwriting and to the factt
thist o was called to speak
f as
the
single forgeryw witness
wases s his
own brother, and the evidence wasof
not corroborated in any manner. It was the duty of
the prosecution trot to have left the jury in any doubt;
gtoard to the trans-
state, he urged that they ought upon any
and as they bad chosen to leavethenotcaate,
tract
this bare
pwriethverde their satialitc•
lion they ought to acquit the prisoner.
suspicion they might entertaint
action, but if the case was not
Baron ALDMISON then summed up, and
After the jury had deliberated for a short time, the
foreman said that -the majority of the jury -were of
-opinion that thigevidence . was not sufficient, and the
others had yielded to that opinion, anti therefore they.
found the Fritime: Not Quay.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 14.
(Sittings in Middlesex, at Nisi Prius, after Easter Term,
before Lord CAMPBELL and Common Juries.)
CUTTING (PAUPER) V. LE BLANC.
Mr. Huntarey and Mr. Ball conducted the case for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Lush was counsel for the defendant.
This was an action to recover compensation in
damages for the breach of an alleged promise of
marriage.
The defendant by his plea denied the promise.
It appeared that the plaintiff is the daughter of a
small farmer, and the defendant is an attorney. In the
year 1839 the plaintiff, who was at that time 17 years
of age, having become acquainted with the defendant,
went into his service in the capacity of his housekeeper.
After she had been with the defendant some time an in-
timacy sprang up between master and maid, in the pro-
gress of which the former made the promise of marriage
in question. In the year 1847 a child was born as the
result of the intimacy which had existed between the
parties. Matters appeared to have run on smoothly until
1850, when, disputes having arisen between them, the
defendant desired that the plaintiff should quit his
house—a step which she declined to take. The de-
'endaut off-red to give her 200/., but this she refused to
eccept, and required that he should fulfil his promise to
marry her. Eventually the defendant turned the plain-
till and her child out of doors. and in the course of time
the present action was instituted for the recovery of
compensation for the breach alleged.
Several witnesses were examined in support of the
case for the plaintiff, among whom were
Charles Painter, who said—l am a gentleman's coach-
man, living in (Mogan place. I visited my sister-in-
law at Stanhope terrace. The defendant treated her in
the kindest manner possible. He used to call her his
" dear Pussey," and always kissed her before he left her.
In the year 1842 the defendant and the plaintiff were
living in furnished apartments, and the servants of the
house waited upon them. The plaintiff was accustomed
to sit in the drawing-room. In 1847 she brought me a
packet of letters, among which were 27 from the de-
fendant himmlf, addressed to her. I read a great deal
of them, but I could not make all out. I❑ some of these
letters the defendant asked her why she should vex and
annoy herself unnecessarily, and then added, " You are
already my wife in the sight of heaven, and as soon as
my circumst,nces enable tue I will give you the honour-
able name of wife." Some of the letters were dated in
1839. There were many of this sort of letters. The
defendant in some of them spoke of his uncle Charles,
and said he did net wish to offend hit uncle, as he ex-
pected a legacy at his death. In February, 1850, the de-
fendant turned the plaintiff out of the house, and put a
padlock on the gate, and said that neither she nor the child
should ever enter the house again. I took the child in
my arms She got over the gate. I then gave her
the child. She begged the defendant to let her in, and
said she was very cold, and the dear child would a's
take cold. He said he would not let her in. She then
told me to go away, for that perhaps when I had gone
he would let her in. I went away, and in five minutes
I went back again. There were then two policemen a'
the house. Defendant was telling the policemen that
this was a person who had lived with him, and who had
had a child. He told them to take me away, and to take
her to an hotel or a house, and he would pay every ex-
pense. Of course I told the policemen the truth, and
they advised him to take her in, for that they would not
take her in charge, and they advised him not to let her
stand there in the cold on a Sunday night. The defen-
dant would not take her in, and they then got an old
shawl from the servants to wrap the child in. She sat
on the steps. She remained there from 9 that night
till 12 the next day. Le Blanc cams out, and I was
walking about with him till four in the morning. Be-
twee❑ this matter and the going before the magistrates
the defendant came to my house. He said he
would summon her, but he did not wish to
press the charge against her, and wished me
to go over to get her to come to some arrangement. The
magistrate recommended a settlement of the matter. The
defendant paid the costs. He came afterwards to my
house and said that he was willing to make her every re-
compense that lay in his power. I said I did not believe
that he really wished it, else he would have done it long
tefore. He said, "To convince you, I have brought
100/. now, and I will give it to you if you will give up
any letters of mine you have got, and will give up all the
rest ; I will sig❑ an agreement to have another 100/. paid
within a twelvemonth, and that he had the agreement
written o❑ a sixpenny stamp." I said that was not suffi
cient; he said it was; but I would not have it, and I said
my wife and I would go over the next day. He said he
wished we would, and he flung down a half-sovereign.
rhe next day we went over. The servants were there.
We had a few words about the stamp. I wanted to call
in a lawyer to draw up the agreement. He said, " No,
he would not have a lot of lawyers." He then said be
would not do anything. He would turn us out, and she
might do what she liked.
Cross-examined--I read the letters in 1847, at the
time when she brought the letters to my house. Ido
not remember the date of the letter which mentioned
about his uncle.

The Learned JUDGE told the jury that their ♦erdict
must be unanimous.

Mr. PARRY said that the verdict hail been records d,
and therefore it was now too late fur the jury to re-
consider the subject.
Mr. COOPER said that there was a second charge
against the prisoner, which be proposed to proceed with.
The prisoner was accordingly charged, upon another
indictment, with forging an acceptance to a bill of ex-
change for 511. 14s. 4d., with intent to defraud the same
prosecutor.

- The circumstances of this case were precisely similar
to those of the former. The prisoner went into Mr.
Symmons' counting-house on the sth of April, and pur-
chased 27 doz-la of champagne, representing that it ants
for the firm of Reed and Co., of Bath, and a bill was
drawn for the amount, which was accepted in the same
form as the one in the oth-r case, and the Dritmer's
brother deposed that he believed the acceptance to be in
the handwriting of the prisoner.
Mr. PARRY again addressed the jury, and contended
that there was no more evidence in this case thsu there
was in the former, and that after the verdict they hAd
given in reference to the former charge they would be
stultifying them-elves it they came to a different conclu-
sion with regard to this one.
Mr. Justice TALFOURD having summed up,
The jury deliberated a short time in the box, and
then stated they were not likely to agree and eiyhed to
retire. Tt.ey left the court at half past 4 o'clock
Shortly after six o'clock they returned and again gain
a verdict of Not Guilty.
.Thniel Connell, 19, was indicted for a burglary in the
dwellinc-house of Samuel Goss.
Mr. Carteen prosecuted, and Mr. O'Brien was counsel
for the prisoner.

It appeared that the prosecutor resided in fic,rbert-
street, Hoxton, and that on the night of the 13th of
April, all the family had gone to rest, leaving the pre-
mises properly secured. About half-past two o'clock
~h the following morning, a servant girl, named El z
beth Wimble. who slept in the front kitchen, was alarmed
by seeing a man in the room with a light, and in the act
of ransacking a box. Sti,, had the courage and pre-
sence of mind, however. to remain perk ctly quiet until
the man went ow of the kitchen and proceeded up stitirs,
when she immediately got up and ran to the front door
which she opened and gava an alarm; the consequence
of wtiich was that the prisoner was taken into custody
as he was in the act of escaping from the premises by
jumping over the garden wall.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the pri
loner was sentenced to be transported for seven years.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANS
onION-HO US N.
Elsdon Thomas, tbe cductor of a Hackney omnibus,
was summoned before the Lord Mayor by Mr. Proud-
toot, of Norf dk-chambers, Strand, under the following
circumstances:—
The complainant said, I got into the defendant's om.
nibus in the Strand for the purpose of going to Hackney.
On arriving at the Royal Exchange the omnibus stopped
for ten minutes. It then went on to Threadneedle-street.
end stopped for about three minutes. The conductor got
down at the Hall of Commerce. I then complained of
the frequent stoppings, and he tapped the side of the
omnibus—a notice to the driver—and it again moved on,
bat the horses merely walks d till we arrived at the
Flowerpot in Biehopsgate street. The horses walked on
afterwards for a considerable time, and I told the defen-
dant that if he would nut go on I would get out. He
said, " Very well, sir, you can get out 4" and I accord.
ingly did get out, but I said to him that I did not intend
to pay him anything. " Oh," said he, " you won't go
unless you pay me 6d." I then took his number and
the number of his omnibus, and paid him 6,1.. and I
called a cab and went the rest of the journey. The tare
of the cab was 3s. 6d. When I spoke to the defendant
in the Strand, he told me he would set me down at the
corner of the street in Hackney to which I wished to go.
The LORD MAYOR—I wish to see the defendant's
licence.
The defendant handed in the document.
The LoRD MAYOR—I see that your licence hay been
indorsed twice within the month—once by Mr. 11..nry,
at Bow-street, and once by Mr. Alderman Copeland, at
Guildhall.
The conductor said he could explain all about the in-
dorsements, and prove that Mr. Henry and Alderman
Copeland were all wrong.
The LORD MAYOR—What do you say to the present
charge?
Conductor—l know nothing at all about it. The
" gent" must have made a mistake. I never had any-
thing to say to him.
The LORD MAYOR—This sort of conduct upon the part
of the servants of omnibuses is the cause of frequent and
heavy complaint. It has of live b- come so prevalent
that I consider it my duty to prevent by all the means
in my power the continuance of a system which oo-
casions such vast public inconvenience. The con-
ductors and drivers act just as they please. They
keep the passengers, particular ladies, prisoners, and
linger about in the course of their journey withou.
caring a straw about the annoyance which they create,
I have had recently a great number of complaints, to
the effect that the omnibus men act in the most arbitrary
manner to their passengers, and I am extremely glad
that a gentleman who has been a sufferer comes for-
ward to give me an opportunity of stating what it is
my intention to do. The judgment I shall pass upon the
defendant is meant, and will I trust tend to opera,e to
correct the evil, and I shalt give immediate directions to
the officers at the Roy al Exchange not to permit the
Hackney and Clapton omnibuses to stop there a longer
time than will be necessary for the convenience of pas-
sengers in getting in or out. If my directions be not
obeyed by the officers they shalt be discharged. In the
hope that all omnibus drivers and conductors will leol:
to the result of this case, I shall suspend the defendant'.
licence for one month, and fine him 11. and costs, or 14
days' imprisonment. Ladies are peculiarly liable to im-
position and ill treatment from this class of persons, who
now make a practice of exercising the most intolerable
tyranny.