The Sun.
London, England, 1851-12-04 00:00:00

BIGNALL V. PUDDY.

This was an action brought for money had and re-
ceived, money lent, and on account stated; to which the
defendant pleaded never indebted, and secondly, that the
money sought to be recovered was lent to the defendant
for the purpose of committing perjury in swearing that
he was worth 250/. as bail for one Nottidgo.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Lush appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Doyle for the
defendant.

It appeared that certain persons known in the sport-
ing world as Johnny Broom, American Jem, and Hand-
some Charley, were taken into custody at Brighto❑ on
a charge of cheating at cards. A Mr. Anderson and the
plaintiff then got a person of the name of Nottidge, cook
at the Argyll Rooms in Great Windmill-street, where
CI casino was kept, and who was stated in the course
of the case to have performed the part of Hercules
in some Poses Plastiques, to go down to Brighton
to offer himself as bail for the " gents in
trouble." Nottidge there swore, on offering him-
self as bail, that he was worth 9001., and that it
was placed in the Bank of England. On inquiry it
turned out that he had no money in the Bank of Eng-
land, and he was accordingly taken into custody himself
on the charge of perjury. The plaintiff then applied to
the defendant, a bootmaker in Punton-street, in the
Haymarket, to be bail for Nottidge for 2501. The de-
fendant refused to be bail unless the amount was ad-
vanced to him, and the plaintiff advanced and paid to
him 2501. The defendant went down to Brighton, but
the magistrates had then accepted the bail of a Mr.
Potter for 5001., the whole bail, arid the defendant re-
turned and gave back 100/., but refused to pay back the
remainder on the ground stated in the plea. The fact
of the payment of the money to the defendant by the
plaintiff being proved,
Mr. M. CHAMBERS addressed the jury for the defend-
ant, contending that the contract was a corrupt one, and
the law would not allow the plaintiff to recover back his
150/. He called no witnesses i❑ support of this position.
Ilia LORDSHIP having briefly summed up the evidence,
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed-1501.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

William Herniman, driver of cab 7,029 was brought
before Mr. Henry, charged under the following circum
stances:—

Isaac Harrit.gton, cab proprietor, who has reduced the
fare to 61. a nafte, stated that about hall-past one o'clock
that morning he -vas with his cab in the ranks in Broad.
street, when the prisoner went up to him and made use
of very abusive language, and expressed his regret that
he hail not the power to inflict punishment on him for
reducing the cab fare to 6d. per mile. The prisoner was
drunk,and complainant believed that his sole object was
toaiinoy him for driving a cab plying at a reduced rate.
Complainant had earned double since he had reduced his

fare.
Police• constable Mulhan, 129 F, stated that he was
called by the complainant to take the prisoner into cus-
tody, having witnessed the transaction. The prisoner
also abused witness in a very coarse manner.
Mr. HENRY said that there vas no doubt the prisoner
meant to oppose the reduced tab fares, but he would
find that the Magistrate would support Mr. Thompson
or any other cab proprietor who reduced the fares. He
(Mr. Henry) was determined to put down such opposi-
tion on the part of persons, like till defendant, interested
in maintaining high fares; and htd the prisoner been
with his cab at the time his license should have been
taken from him, but any cab-driver so offending in future
would have his licence revoked and bo imprisoned. The
prisoner must pay a fine of 40s. for abusing the com-
plainant, and 40s. for abusing the constable, or be im-
prisoned for one calendar month. His Worship hoped
this example would be for the benefit of the public in-
terested in reduced cab fares.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
__

Mr. Miles Monkton was summoned before Mr. Bing-
ham fur an assault upon George Mardon, assistant to
Messrs. Unwin and Albert, haircutters and vendors of
the "Regenerateur pomade."
The complainant said the defendant had run up a
little bill for regenerateur pomade and other specifics
for "promoting a luxurious growth of hair," and he had
been told by his employers to call for the money. On
Monday, about eleven o'clock, he called at 24, Mar-
garet-street, and asked if the defendant was at home.
He was answered in the negative, bat, having good rea-
son to suspect the defendant was within, he walked up
stairs and tapped at the door of the defendant's apart-
ment. On being told to " come in" he opened the door
and found the defendant seated with two friends at
breakfast. He told the defendant his errand, and re-
quested a definite reply as to settlement. The defen-
dant told him to quit the room, and, after some further
words, the defendant took him by the collar and swung
him out of the room. The defendant afterwards struck
at him with his fist, and the blow fell upon his hat.
The defendant said the complainant was exceedingly
offensive in his manner and language, and, as the de-
fendant persisted in remaining when told to leave the
room, ho certainly did oblige him to go out.
Mr. BINGHAM said it was not to be borne that trades-
men should adopt a system of importunity in order to
obtain payment of their bills, and should insist upon re-
maining in a customer's house until paid. Under the
circumstances of the case he should dismiss the sum-
mons, laaving the complainant to his remedy in the
County Court.