The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-27 00:00:00

HENDERSON V. EASON.

The question in this case was whether, where one
tenant in common, who has had the sole enjoyment of
the land, farmed it, and taken the produce, can be sued
in an action of account by his co-tenant, under the
statute 4 Anne, c. 16, s. 27, although it may be uncer-
tain whether the occupying party has received any
surplus profit.
The case was argued in the sittings in error after
Hilary term last.
Mr. Baron PARKE now delivered the judgment of
the Court, and said the declaration alleged that Ed-
ward Eason eince dead, and whose executor Hender-
son the plaintiff in error is, and Robert Eason, were
tenants in common of certain lands and hereditaments
from November, 1833, to November, 1839, and
that the said Edward Eason in his lifetime had
the care and management of the whole of said mes
suages, lands, and hereditaments, to receive and
take the rents, issues, and profits thereof, to the
common profit of Robert Eason and Edward Eason,
deceased, and as bailiff of Robert Eason, of what he
received more than his just share and proportion
thereof, to render a reasonable account thereof,
and his said share thereof when he should be required
se to do, according to the form of the statute, &c.
There was an averment that Edward Eason, deceased
had in his lifetime received more than his own just,
share, to the amount of 2,0001., and that he did not
render a reasonable account thereof. And that since
his death Henderson, the executor, the plaintiff in
error, had not accounted. To this declaration there
were two pleas-Ist, denying that Edward Eason in
his lifetime had the care, &c., as bailiff, to render a
reasonable account thereof; 2d, denying that Edward
Eason received more than his due share, upon which
issue was joined. It appeared that the tenements and
lands consisted of a farm, and that Edward Eason, de-
cease d, was in the sole occupation and possession, and
cultivated and farmed the land, and appropriated the
whole of the profits to his own use. Daring the
whole time, the lands never were let to, or in the
possession of, any tenant paying rent, nor did he re-
ceive any rent, issues, or profits other than the pro-
fits and produce derived from the culture of the land.
The trial w es had before Mr. Justice Coleridge, and
the question now arises upon his ruling to the jury.
There is no doubt as to the law before the statute of
Anne. Now, if one tenant in common occupies
the whole, there is no remedy unless he is
bailiff to his co-tenant in common. The
declaration is framed upon the statute. Now,
under the statute, he is bailiff only, as having received
more than his share, as is explained by Chief Justice
Willes, in Wheeler v. Horne, in Willes' Reports, p.
209. In the Act of Anne the receipt of issues and
profits is not mentioned, but only the receipt of more
than comes to his just share, that is, more than his
just share within the statute. The statute includes
all the rent received for both, and where one receives
the whole or more than his share, he becomes bailiff
for the other as to that excess. But it is difficult to
extend the statute beyond that. Thus, if two are
tenants in common of a room, and it is solely occu-
pied by one, and nothing is received, it would be hard
that the mere occupation is to be accounted for, and
that is not within the statute as was decided by Lord
Cottenham. Again, if one tenant in common occupies,
and expends money upon a farm, and it comes to
more than a fair rent, as if he cultivates hops, and he
takes the whole of the crops, he could not be called
upon by his co-tenants for an account of his profit
and losses. The risk is his own, and in taking all the
produce he cannot be said to be taking more than his
just share, for he only receives a return for his capital
and labour. Upon the whole, therefore, we think that
the direction of the Learned Judge, on the second
plea, was wrong, and that there must be a venire do
novo.

COURT OF INLAND HEVES UE. Nov. 26.
(Before 11. P. STEPHENSON, Esq., C. J. lIERRIES,
Esq., and A. MONTGOMERY, Esq.)
This Court resumed its sittings this day, after a pro-
tracted recess of nearly six months, to dispose of a
portion of a long list of cases in arrear.
CONVICTION OF A LICENSED VICTUALLER FOR THE
POSSESSION OF ADULTERATING MATERIALS.
Edward Vincent, of the Duchess of Kent, Deverell-
street, Dover-road, was charged with having in his
possession certain articles for the adulteration of
beer, and to be used as a substitute for malt and hops.
Mr. David Scott, a supervisor of Excise, said on
the. 26. h of April last he went to the premises of the
&fondant, who carried on business in Deverell-street,
Dover-road. lie was accompanied by Messrs. Duly

NING, NOVEMBER 27, 1851.

and Pargeter. When he got to the house he saw the
Wai au-
ject of his visit. Witness asked him to accompany
him to the cellar, and he did so, and they first
entered the beer cellar. In the course of his exami-
nation he found a large quantity of bottles, and
amongst them one large bottle containing about a
gallon and a quarter of liquid, which he had since
ascertained to bo a compound of getaian and treacle.
Upon being questioned about it the defendant
said it contained cherry brandy, and on
witness's request he tasted it, and after having done
so he said that he could not tell what It was, but it
must have been in the cellar at the time he took the
house. He said that he had been in the house for
about three years. It did not appear that the bottle
had been recently used. Witness then asked defen- •
dant if he had used any of the liquid by mixing it
with his beer, and he said that he had not, as he
always used foots sugar. In the bar upstairs he also
found a bottle of the tincture of capsicum, but the
possession of this article was not included in the pre-
sent charge.
The defendant denied having stated in the cellar
that he used foots sugar, but afterwards admitted that
be used it in consequence of the officer telling him
that if he had put any thing into the beer he had bet-
ter acknowledge it, and it would be better for him, as
they should be sure to find it out.
Mr. Scott said the defendant distinctly told him
in the cellar that he put foots sugar into his beer,
which he wrote down in the place at the time, and,
moreover, he showed him the cask into which he had
put it.
Mr. Benjamin Elmy said he was in the cellar at the
time of the occurrence, and the account given by
Mr. Scott was true.

Mr. Commissioner STEPnENsoN—What appear-
ance bad the bottle at the time it was found ? Mr.
Elmy said it had the ordinary appearance of the other
bottles. The cork was not encrusted and was easily
removed. _ _

Mr. C. B. Forsy, assistant chemist to the Board of
Inland Revenue, said he had received two samples of
the mixtures which had been seized on the defendant's
premises. One sample consisted of saccharine matter
and a bitter substance which he believed to be gen-
tian. This mixture was commonly used for adul-
terating beer. The second sample was tincture of
capsicum.
Mr. Commissioner STEPHENSON (to the defendant)
—ls it possible to believe that so bulky a bottle as
that (pointing to it) could have been in your cellar
for three years without your knowledge ? The de-
fendant said such was the fact.
Mr. Commissioner STEPHENSON—Do you mean to
tell the Court that you could have so large a bottle,
containing, as you say, cherry brandy, for three
years and know nothing about it? The Court gives
judgment against you in the penalty of 25!.

1L,0.: II

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
THIkD COURT,
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
Angelina Adams, alias Mary Ann Burhe, aged 18,
was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.
The defendant, a strange, sickly-looking girl, ap-
parently younger than stated, pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Ballantine appeared for the
prosecution, which was instigated by the authorities
of Hammersmith parish.
The COMMON SERGEANT asked if she was defended,
and, learning that she was not, directed that she should
be, and the Under-Sheriffs requested Mr. Huddle-
stone to watch the proceedings on her behalf.
Mr. BODKIN having stated the case to the jury,
called
Mr. John William Nicholls, clerk to the magis-
trates of the Hatnmersmith Police-court, who stated
that on the 17th of October the prisoner brought to
their court by the authorities of the parish, and after
Mr. Paynter, the magistrate, had given a private
hearing to the parties, he granted, at the instance of
the prisoner, a summons against Mary Joseph, one
of the sisters of the Good Shepherd Convent at
Hammersmith, for an assault. When the summons
came on for hearing, the prisoner having been duly
sworn, made a statement in evidence to the
following effect :—That she was of the Pro-
testant faith and had been in service in Liverpool,
where some months before she had met a man, a Ca-
tholic priest ; that he brought her up to London and
took her to the convent at Hammersmith, where she
had been confined ; that they had tried to make a
Catholic of her, and that in consequence of her re-
fusing, the superiors had cut her hair off as a pu-
nishment. She most minutely described how it was
effected, stating that it was in the month of July ;
that two women held her down (there being four
present), whilst sister Joseph cut it off. She had
several times requested to be let out, but was kept a
close prisoner, and had escaped on the morning of the
16th by getting through a wall in the garden, where
some repairs were going on. Mr. Paynter having
heard the case dismissed the complaint against Mary
Joseph, and directed the guardians to institute these
proceedings.
Mary Joseph was next examined, and her ap-
pearance excited much curiosity in court. She was
attired in a black cloak and bonnet, covered with a
thick black crape veil, and a close white cap setting
closely to the face. She stated herself to be
portress to the Good Shepherd Convent, Hammer-
smith, which is an institution for the reception
of penitent women who have led a loose life. On
the 15th of October the prisoner came there with
a letter from the Rev. Dr. Connelly, of Moorfields.
She gave the name of Angelina Adams. She stayed
there that night, but was sent away the next day for
deceit, having denied that she had been there before,
though recognised by one of the penitents as having
been there for some months during the year 1848.
Prisoner is a Catholic. Protestants are admitted.
Her hair had not been cut off there ; I have nothing
to do with that part.
Cross-examined—We have no other than Catholic
worship within the convent,
,and all who are in there
have to attend.
Mrs. Maria Gibson, of Upper Seymour-street, a
widow, said that she met prisoner at the Catholic Cha-
pel in Upper Rosoman-street, Clerkenwell. That
was in February last. She was wretchedly destitute,
and witness took her home to live with her, and kept
her for some time. She was suffering from a scrofu-
lous disease and weakness. After keeping her some
time, witness not liking her ways, prisoner left her,
and she next saw her in July ; sbe was at her door
step in a dreadful state of illness and want ; all her
hair had been cut off, which she said had been done
at the workhouse when she had the fever. Witness
took her to the Free Hospital, Grey's Inn-lane, and
then she went to the Charing-cross Hospital, from
whence she discharged herself, and witness saw
nothing more of her until she was in custody on this
charge.
B c Mr.HUDDLESTONE—I do not think her mind was
affected, hut she seemed dreadfully depressed at her
poverty when I first saw her, and I thought she
would commit suicide. She is very much to be
pitied. She has not a friend, and her sufferings are
very gre-it.
Sister Ellen, another nun, habited the same as
sister Joseph, deposed to letting the prisoner out of
the convent on the morning of the 16th of October.
Mr. Charles Hibberd, overseer of St. Pancras,
proved the prisoner to have been admitted to the
house on the 27th of March last. She left on the
llth of July.
Mr. Waldegrave, the parish surgeon, said her hair
was cut off by his direction. Being suffering from
fever, she was quite unconscious at the time. She
suffered from scrofulous swellings in the abdomen,
and was in a very bad state.
Julia Smith, nurse at the workhouse, said that she
supported her in bed whilst her hair was cut off,
which was done by the barber.
It further appeared that on the 11th of August she
went to the Free Hospital, Gray's Inn-lane, where
she left of her own accord on the 29th of August, and
on the next day went to Charing-cross Hospital,
where she was at once taken in, her case being
deemed so urgent. She left there on the 30th of
September, against the wishes of the medical autho-
rities.
The Rev. Mr. Conelly, of the Catholic Church,
Moorfields, said that on the afternoon of the sth of
October his attention was called to the prisoner, who
was in the body of the church. She seemed very ill
and distressed, and in answer to his questions said she
had never been in any place of worship; that she had
been an orphan from two years of age ; that she was
a prostitute, and had been from thirteen years of age,
a life she wished to leave ; and added, that she was
then residing at a brothel in Half Moon-street. She
seeming sincerely penitent, he gave her some money
to get a lodging. Not knowing that she had been at
the Hammersmith Convent he communicated with the
superior, and gave her the letter that procured her the
admission.
The Rev. Mr. Long, another priest, said he had
known her from her childhood, and had got her into
St. Patrick's School. She was brought up as aCa
tholic. Upon leaving there she went to a situation,
which she left. He ultimately got her into the Good
Shepherd Convent. That was in 1848.
After some further evidence,
Mr. HunneesTorm addressed the jury for the de-
fence, and in a very eloquent speech dwelt at great
length upon the wretched condition of the prisoner,
whose statement, he contended, had not been made
with any wilfully corrupt intent, but under the in-
fluence of great mental as well as bodily suffering,
and concluded by saying that he felt sure that after
what had transpired, not the slightest stain would he
attached to the ladies of this most humane and bene-
volent institution.
The jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, Ac-
quitted her.
Mr. BODKIN requested the Common Sergeant to
ask on what ground.
The Commox SERGEANT said he could not do that.

Mr. BODKIN wished to know if than thought her

Several of the jury said no.
The case seemed to excite great interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Albert Kionsburg, who was some days age ex-
amined upon the charge of having obtained utirl r
fraudulent pretences a diamond bracelet from Messrs.
Lachnisnn, of William-street, Dublin, jewellers, was
brought up for final examination, upon the applica-
tion of one of the firm to send him to that city, by
virtue of a warrant issued by a magistrate there.
Mr. Yates appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Lewis
for the defence, which was " mistaken identity."
Robert Navin, an officer of the Dublin mete politan
police, said—l produce a warreot, signed "W. Tin-
deli," a magistrate of Dublin, for the apprehension of
Adolph Kielman for obtaining a diamond bracelet
under false pretences. I have no knowledge of him,
but I believe there are witnesses as to his identity,
and that the prisoner is the person.
Here Mr. Goodman, the chief clerk, read over the
evidence of Mr. J. E Lachmann, one of the partners
in the Dublin firm. It stated that the witness had
seen the prisoner at the house in William-street as
Dr Kielman, from which circumstance, connected
with the fact that the witness had received a letter
from his brother upon the subject of the fraud, it was
presumed that Albert Kionsburg was Dr. Adolph
Kielman.
A gentleman of commercial respectability had, it
appeared, called at the Mansion-house after the pri-
soner had been remanded on the former day, and
offered bail to any amount for his appearance, from
the firm conviction of the innocence of the accused,
who had positively denied that he knew anything at
all about the matter.
Mr. Lachmann, cross-examined by Mr. Lewis,
said—l was present when the prisoner called upon
my brother as Doctor Kielman, and my brother sub-
sequently acquainted me with the fact, that Doctor
Kielman had defrauded him of the article.
Mr. Yates said he could carry the case further by
further examination of the prosecutor.
Mr. Lachmann—l saw the prisoner in London on
Thursday evening, and asked him if he knew me.
He stuttered for an instant, and gave no answer. I
then said, " You do know me ; you have robbed my
brother ; you stole a diamond bracelet from him, and
committed forgery upon a friend of mine of the name
of Harris." He then said, in German, to me, " For
God's sake do not bring me into any trouble." I
said, " I have no alternative ; I must give you in
charge." He said then that he was in the greatest
distress, that he had no money or property of any
kind except the gold chain round his neck, which
was belonging to Mr. Harris. I told the waiter to
fetch a policeman.
Mr. Yates—ln what language did he make these
observations to you ? Witness—ln German. I told
him to speak in English, which he understands per-
fectly, in order that those present might understand
him, but he did not. This took place at a house at
the corner of the Royal Exchange.
Mr. Lewis—Why did you not make use of this
statement before ? Witness—Because I thought that
what I had stated before was quite sufficient.
Mr. Yates submitted that enough had been shown
to justify the magistrate in giving up the prisoner to
the officer.
Mr. Lewis called the attention of the alderman to
the stringent nature of the A ct, to support a charge
under which it was but reasonable that the testimony
should be therefore very clear and distinct. He con-
tended that the identity of the prisoner with the Doc-
tor Kiehl-lan accused of the fraud was by no means
satisfactory, and he supposed the case of a person
personating Doctor Kleiman in Dublin, and obtaining
the bracelet upon that misrepresentation. He asked,
too, what sort of satisfaction the prisoner was to ex-
pect if, upon being taken to Dublin, it was admitted
that he was not Doctor Kielman
Alderman WIRE said that all he had to do in the
case was to see that the warrant was a genuine
document, and that the prisoner was the person who
was believed to be meant in it as chargeable with
an indictable offence. As for the doubt which Mr.
Lewis seemed to entertain on the subject of retri-
bution, should the identity happen to be defective, a
court of law in either country would soon settle that
business.
The prisoner then, against the advice of his solici-
tor, began to remark, and in very good English, upon
what he considered to be the inconsistency of the
statements of the principal witness, but his appeal to
the alderman strengthened the case against him, and
he was handed over to the Dublin officer.
A young Irish labourer, named John Barry, was
charged before the Lord Mayor with having robbed
and assaulted Johanna Healey, a countrywoman of
his, in Sevenstep-alley, Houndsditch.
The statement of the prosecutrix was interrupted
by bursts of laughter from a crowd of her dissolute
neighbours, who appeared in the justice-room.
The LORD MAYOR—Complainant, are you a married
woman ? Complainant (after a little hesitation)—
Well, I am, I believe. It's two years ago since I saw
my first husband.
The LORD Me.roa—ls he dead ? Complainant—
No, your Lordship, not that I know.
The LORD MAYOR—Have you got any family by
him ? Complainant—Every one of nine children.
The LORD MAYOR—And what do you know of the
prisoner at the bar. Is he your second husband ?
Complainant—No, your Lordship; but he has
been making a fool of me. She then detailed the
following facts :—The prisoner had been courting
her about three weeks, and as her husband had
gone away without giving her notice, she thought
she might as well have his place supplied, so she
listened to the man who proposed to be his successor,
and they went together off to a priest's house,
over the water, to get the business done. When they
knocked at the door the priest wasn't at home, and
they both returned to her house in Sevenstep-alley,
after getting leave from the priest's servant, and slept
together that night. Next morning, after breakfast,
she began to reckon the money she had in her purse,
amounting to half a sovereign and some silver, with
which she intended to purchase a basket of fruit, but
the moment she laid it upon the table up the prisoner
whipped the gold, said he was entitled as her husband
to all her property, and away he went to buy a new
pair of breeches, leaving her with the miserable re-
mains of her last month's earnings for the support of
her family. Finding that he was a common deceiver
she determined to quit his acquaintance altogether;
but on Tuesday night he walked into her bedroom in
his new breeches, and wanted to take up his quarters
in the place, to which his reverence's servant told him
he had a claim as her intended husband. She virtu-
ously refused to acknowledge him any more, and in-
sisted upon his speedy departure from her chamber,
whereupon he beat her violently about the head, and
was apprehended by the police.
The LORD MAYOR (to the complainant)—Have
you any witnesses. Complainant—Yes, your wor
ship; my daughter was witness to everything that
happened between us.
Margaret Healey, who appeared
years old, said, I am her daughter,ao be about l
ndsawth
pri-
soner come in and give my mother ever so much im-
pudence ; my mother got up, and said she would have
no more of it, and then he gave her three whacks
across the mouth, and set her in a pool of blood ; and
he told her he'd have her life.
The prisoner—Your Lordship, she followed me
everywhere, and bothered me so, that I was obliged
to become her husband for a time ; and then she
wanted to have it all her own way, and she hit me
with her brogue ; so I thought it best to give her a
clout or two.
The prisoner was fined 20s. for the assault, and not
being able to pay the fine was sent to prison for 21
days.

BO W-STREET.
Benjamin Davis, a well-dressed young man, who
has been repeatedly convicted of thieving, was charged
with stealing a brace of pistols from the chambers of
a gentleman in Duke-street, Adelphi.
The prisoner called at seven o'clock in the evening,
and seeing a little girl who had the cure of the cham-
bers, represented himself to her as a friend of her
master's, with whom he had made an appointment at
the chambers. She said that her master was out,
upon which the prisoner entered the rooms, and told
her that he would wait for him. After remaining for
a few minutes he walked out again, in a suspicious
manner, and told her that be would call another
time ; and on the following morning it was discovered
that a case, containing a brace of pistols, had been
stolen.
Mr. Kinnaird, a civil engineer, who occupied the
chambers, deposed to having missed the pistols, which
warn worth 10/. ; and
Sergeant West, of the F division, identified the
prisoner as a notorious thief, who had usually effected
his robberies by pretending to offer newspapers for
sale at gentlemen's chambers.
The prisoner, who offered no defence, was remanded.
William Poole, a lad of 13, who had been employed
at the Oriental Club•hou4e as an errand boy, was
charged on suspicion of stealing a letter containing
two bills of exchange for 6001., and his father was
charged with receiving the same.
Tne letter had been taken from a letter-box in
the ball of the club,

The me was remanded for further inquiry, the
elder prisoner beiflg litu,ratd on bail.

---
EXTRAoRDINARY EWE SIIEEP.—There is now
exhibiting in the shop of Mr. Ilaxeltine, butcher, of Dud-
ley, a most extraordinary fine sheep of the Cotswold or long-
wool breed. She was bred and fed by Mr. John Baxter, of
rryefield, in the parish of Eastleach Martin, Gloucestershire,
and is considered by competent judges to be the finest speci.
men of a sheep in the kingdom. The following are the di-
mensions of thi,A astounding anim it :—Length along the
back (alive). 4 feet; round the girth, 51t. 10 ; weight,
(:dive), 18 score 17 lbs.; dead, 12 score 7 lbs., being 6'l lbs.
per quarter, and with th loose fat 272 lbs., being 68 lb, per
quarter, Age, four years,.. Worcester Chronicle.