The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-13 00:00:00

WILSON V. WILSON.

This was originally a suit fora separation pro-
moed by the wife against the husband, on the
ground of adultery. The Court, in 1814, pro-
nounced for the prayer of the wife, and allotted
601. per annum as alimony. The husband has re-
cenily fallen in al-reins, and he appealed to show
cause why the payments were not fuly made.
Mr. \A ilson said his business asa Sheriff's Officer
had fallen off, and he had been compelled to take

the benefit of the Insolvent Act. He feared his
business would be quite cut up by the doing away
of imprisonment for debt, and that he should not be
able to pay the alimony.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said, the excuse that the hus-
band had taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act was
not sufficient, and if 101. were not paid by next
Court he should pronounce the husband in contempt.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 12.

(Before Lord LYNDHURST and a Special Jury.)

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v lIALL AND ALISON.

This was an information filed by the Attorney-
General on behalf of the Crown, against Messrs.
Hall and Alison, extensive tea-dealers, carrying on
business in St. Mary Axe, on the alleged ground of
having teas in their possession without a permit,
and of having a fraudulent imitation of the East
India Company's tea seal also in their possession,
both with a view of defrauding the Crown and
their customers, which would subject them to
penalties of several thousand pounds.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for the prosecution,
said that the information charged the defendants
with having been in,the habit of forwarding teas to
their country customers short of the weight which
the chests contained when delivered to them from
the Company's warehouses, each chest exhibiting a
deficiency of one pound weight. The information
also charged, that the defen !ants were in the habit
of receiving permits from the Messrs. Shankie and
Co., tea-dealers, in London, to be fraudulently ap-
plied by them (the defendants) in sending teas out
from their warehouse. With regard to the seal,
the practice of the East India Company, after teas
are weighed, is to seal the chests with the Company's
seal; so that, if the seal be not subsequently broken,
the purchaser receives the contents of the chests
according to their weight when sent nut of the
Company's premises. In the defendant's writing.
desk was found the forged and counterfeit seal
which he (the Solicitor-General) now held in his
hand. It was an imitation, but not an exact copy
of the Company's seal, having, like forged Bank
notes, certain marks, differing from the original, by
which it was discovered to be a counterfeit. The
counterfeit seal varied only from the genuine im-
pression in two letters. It exhibited the Com-
pany's arms quartered, and the letters U. E. I. C.
T. W., which means United East India Company's
Tea Warehouses, which corresponded so far with
the Company's seal ! but it had in addition, the
letters" I. L," which he supposed was meant to
make tip the words " United East India Company's
(Inland) Tea Warehouses." It was sometimes
found very convenient for a defence to have articles
subject to prosecutions, differ in some particulars
from the original which they were meant to imitate.
This seal, however, was a forgery, and had been
applied in sealing tea-chests sent from the def-nd-
atit's premises. The counts in the information,
which were very numerous (upwards of 23),
amongst oilier charges, contained one charging the
defendants with haring had teas in their possession
without a permit. The Learned Gentleman con-
cluded by crliing witnesses, after which,
Sir JAMES SCARLETT addressed the jury for the
defendants, who being unable to determine their
verdict in the box, retired, and at nearly twelve
o'clock, returned in.o Court, and declared their ver-
dict for the defendant on the first of the two selected
counts—namely, " the abstraction of the tea from
the chests," which they had not proof of; and on
the second, respecting the permits, they gave their
verdict for the Crown—Penalty 5001.
It was understood that the Crown will not pro-
ceed on the other counts.

The Court was densely crowded during the trial,
which was on from ten o'clock in the forenoon up
to the time stated.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MARYLEB ONE.
CHARGE OF ROBBERY.—Louisa Baxter, a young
woman, was yesterday placed at the bar, charged
with stealing two silver forks, the property of Wm.
Abbott, Esq , Na. 11, Wyndham-place, Bi yanston-
square.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor,
that on Friday last, the prisoner was ungaged by
his cook to assist her in cleaning the house. On
Monday he was informed by his footman that five
silver dessert spoons and two silver forks were
missing from, his (prosecutor's) plate. Witness
desired him to make inquiries at the different pawn-
brokers, which he did, and in a short time returned,
saying. that the forks had been that day pledged
with Mr. Smith, pawnbroker, of the Edgware-road,
for the sum of 1/. The prisoner answering the
description of the person who had pledged them,
witness caused her to be apprehended.
John Mathews, shopman to Mr. Smith, produced
the forks, and identified the prisoner as the person
who pledged them.
Police constable D 38 stated that on going to
take the prisoner into custody at her lodgings in
Grotto-passage he found her lying on a bed in the
front kitchen in a beastly state of intoxication. No
duplicate, or anything relating to the lost property,
was found in her possession.
The prisoner, who denied that she was the person
who had pawned the forks, was remanded till
Saturday that inquiries might in the meantime be
made after the lost spoons.
Caroline Burn, a young woman, about 18 years
of age, very respectably attired, was placed at the
bar, charged as follows :
Mr. Hirry Frederick Telling, an eminent uphol-
sterer, residing at No. 3, Caroline-place, Regent's
Park, deposed that the prisoner was in the constant
habit of annoying him by knocking at his door at
unseasonable hours of the night. About two
o'clock that morning he was awoke by hearing a
violent knocking at the door; he got up, and on
looking out of the window saw the prisoner. He
called out, desiring her to go away, but she refused,
arid at the same time caught up a stone, which she
threw at the parlour window, and broke a pane of
glass. A policeman shortly after passing, witness
told him to take the prisoner into custody.
The prisoner, in reply to the charge, had been
seduced about two years back by the complainant,
who took her away from her paren,s and home; he
had since discarded her, and wishing to speak to
him she, at the time stated, knocked at his door,
when refusing to come down she certainly did at the
moment throw a stone at the windows.
She was ordered to find bail.
SINGULAR APPLICATION. Yesterday a young
man of genteel appearance made the following
statement :—Being in want of a little ready money,
he sent a very good surtout cost to the shop of a
pawnbroker in the neighbourhood of Lisson-grove,
for the purpose of raising a loan on it. The pawn-
broker, after inspecting the article, turned the
sleeves inside out, and then taking a pen, wrote
"rogue" on the white lining, in characters that
could not be mistaken. Having performed this ope-
ration, he turned his attention to the other sleeve,
on which he drew in ink three balls nearly of the
same dimensions as those hanging over his door to
typify his trade. Having done this, he returned
the article to the person, who left the shop with it.
Ile (applicant) had since called upon the pawn-
broker for an explanation, when he became very
abusive, and called him a dealer
Mr. RAWLINSON said it was a case in which he
could not interfere.