The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-17 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(TIIIS DAY•)

THOMAS V. WEBBER.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, with whom was Mr. GAist,ss,
stated the case. It was an action brought by an apothecary
residing in Vauxhall-bridge-road, to recover the sum of 35'
for medicine and medical attendance upon the wife of the de-
fendant, who is a piano-forte maker in the employment 1),
;
Messrs. Broadwood. The plaintiff had been in attendance
upon Mrs. Webber during the months of April, May, Jul'
and July, 1833, during which time he bad been constant,'
visiting her.
The defence, which was conducted by Sir JOHN CAMPBELeL;
was that the quantity of medicine amounting at times totaa
:be
or twelve draughts a-day, was quite unnecessary, and
been sent merely for the purpose of swelling UP „
Bill. It was also contended that the plaintiff could not leg
4"'
recover, he not having obtained a certificate from the AP01,,, 10
caries' Company, and not having been practising as olt",
August, 1815.
hi) Several witnesses were examined for the plaintiff, "'
proved his having attended the defendant's wife, and that t,,P_
prices charged were reasonable. The plaintiff's brother .of:
posed that the plaintiff was carrying on a medical establici,
ment in partnership with him in the year 1813, in On
Lion-street, Uxbridge-road.
Sir J. CAMPBELL addressed the Jury for the defendant, 11.11
called some witnesses to prove that the quantity of reedild
supplied to Mrs. Webber was unnecessary, and if taken lout,
be more injurious than otherwise. The medical gentlematil.ad
whom the plaintiff's brother was bound, deposed that he Pui,
been his apprentice up to the year 1816, and remained as

assistant up to June, 1817.
The Learned Judge said that this evidence distinctly II;
tived the possibility of the plaintiff having been in busing
prior to 1815.

The plaintiff was accordingly nonsdted.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-{THIS

The Lord Chief Justice TINDAL, Mr. Justice LITTLIPAiItis
and the LORD MAYOR, took their seats on the Bench t
morning at ten o'clock.
s
Mr. ADOLPHUS moved for the judsment of the Court Doy,
Mr. Carlile. On the part of the City, he was bound to 550
that in prosecuting that case they had merely done their du;',,
by doing all in their power to keep a great thoroughfare P-t,
and free.from interruption. Since the trial of the indict
the nuisance had been abated. Mr. Chad exhibited a °to
picture of the effigies, but of that he a was not then grinted
complain. It was so small as not to ttract much nottee,;ia.
certainly would not cause such crowds to assemble as they r.
The prosecutors did not wish to press hardly upon Mr*,c„ to
life, and would be perfectly satisfied if he would Pr'n;Ance
keep the nuisance abated, and enter into his own re"gni when
to appear and receive the judgment of the Colirt
called upon.
Mr. Carlile put in an affidavit, which wasread hy the Officej'
In it he stated that in exhibiting the effigies, he had 1.10
rate motive, and was sincerely sorry that it had been de L;
mental to the interests of any of his neighbours.
had considered that he had a perfect right to exhibit them, for
that his shopman had been illegally fined in the sum of 51- ae
a similar offence, and he was anxious to try his right. !,;(3
also ti.ought the church-rates were very oppressive in the
parish of St. Dunstan's, and wished to bring the attention
the public to the subject.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE enquired whether the affidalit
was put in in mitigation ?
It went on to state, that since the trial the effigies
had heir
appeared, and he would not again put them up, and that t
se,
Lordships would not call upon him to find sureties, bele° ia
from the nature of his business he would find great difficulty
procuring them. There were many great moral as IT
political evils in existence, and while he lived he would do
in his power to abate them. the
After a long consultation between their Lordships anAfter
Recorder, the latter passed the sentence of the Court. i 0.
stating the nature of the offence, he said the Judges hati_Pt be
posed a most lenient sentence, in the hope that it would n_._urt
misconstrued, but have a beneficial effect upon him. The ,l'aut 0
could not pass over so grave an offence without punishments if
he slid before, on that occasion it would be a lenient one ; ;ad
the offence was repeated, the fact would be borne in fie
that such was not the course to be pursued with hinhi, :ee,
then sentenced Mr. Carlile to pay a fine of 40s. to the Kim
to enter into a recognizance to. keep the peace for throe! also
himself in 2001., and two sureties in Oa each. n'odage
added, that the latter part was not an unnecessary aPP,_e:uited,
to the sentence, for if ever the effigies were again
the securities would most certainly be compelled to
Mr. Carlile was then taken into New ate by Mr. "leu'od
and •
he is to be imprisoned till the fine is paid the sureties

NEW COURT. „ jute-
The only case tried this morning which possessed an
rest was the f
Casey, agollowing : ,atcht
Elizabeth ed 21, was indicted for stealing a' 1.1.
value 21., the property of William Thomas, from his PCars°•rs'
The prosecutor said he was a clerk, and as he Was r tp'or
ing from business on the night of Dec. 3to his home at ad,
lir, he was accosted by the prisoner in the East India .robin
who begged him to give her a few halfpence; he felt, e
pocket, and finding he had none, he told her so and lelut had
Shortly afterwards he missed his watch, the ribbon ribi°"The
fastened it round his neck having been cut or broken-
watch produced was his watch. l' the
Cross-examined by Mr. DOANE—Witness did not o.,ited
prisoner to permit him to go home with her, but she in' but
him home. Did not promise to give her half-a-crosvn,
they had along conversation, which was interrupted by 3 1
son coming up, and he went away.
By the Jury—Did you kiss her?
Witness—Not gt )
A police constable, (
who apprehended the prisoner,
station'
house he found the watch upon the prisoner. At the
house she said the prosecutor gave it to her.
The psecutor was recalle, nd asked y the Court if he
had, either directly or indirectly, given herb the watch ?
Prosecutor—No, certainly not.
The prisoner was found guilty.
The COMMON- SERGEANT said she had been twice tried befoatirei
Prisoner—_l was tried for five sovereigns, but I was ion°
and acquitted.
appear"
Amelia Saunders, a young woman of prepossessine
ance, who appeared at the bar with an infant in heri, Joe
was indicted for stealing a piece of lace, the property °f
Ye who,
Mr. CLARKSON appeared on behalf of the prisons',
being respectably connected, had been admitted to ball•
__lnher
The prosecutnx stated that, down to the 23d of Sepitrivi
her-
last, the prisoner had apartments in the same house dap
self. On that day she went to other lodgings, and fiYuda to
afterwards witness missed her lace. She went after?r,_ her,
Worship-street, and got Handley the officer to go with he
and they found the lace in a box at the prisoner'slodrA
Clarkson,
In the course of a rigid cross-examination by Mr.
the witness admitted that she should not have T
proseeerteed:obeude
for the instigation of a Mrs. Burrows, who had been th a,t,u fa..
by the prisoner of telling Mr. Burrows that she was ertness
mh e 1, andiliar terms with a Germa tailor.—( Laughter.
contradicted part of then statement she had just madwe
denied some of it in Coto.
Mrs. Burrows was called, and admitted that she
risoner 5
a drunken policeman to break open the door of the P terms
room, and examine the box. She was on very intimate Ger-
with that policeman, and was in the habit of kissing
man tailor in public that(Lg) was as
Mr. CLARKSON said he dared to say the witness
fond of a German kiss, as she was of an English one.
as
The witness simpered her assent. he inquiry,
The Jurors rose and said they wished to stop t instigate?'
they could not convict any person upon such evidet.ice• di_
The COMMON-SERGEANT concurred in this opinion,.
e
rected a verdict of acquittal, which was returned, to the
faction of every person in Court.
. _

Lord Stanley, whom the London papers of Saturday.
evening describe as momentarily expected in London, retur
terned
to Knowsley-ball, from his visit to Shropshire, on Friday af"
noon, where his Lordship now remains.—Liverpool Albion.

His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS took causes and fa
tber directions to-day, but in consequence of the absence °f
Mr. Pemberton, the Court could proceed with very little bus'"
ness, and his Honour rose shortly after I 1 o'clock.
We understand that it is not yet finally determined whether
Mr. Pemberit,-n is to be the Solicitor-General or not. it i
understood his appoLltment depends upon his obtaining a seat
for Ripon.
Mr. Rolfe still acts as SolicitCY-General, and signs all .016"
cial documents.

Mr. F. Pollock took his seat this morning as his Majesty''
Attorn3y-General, in the room of Sir John Campbell.