The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-14 00:00:00

LAW INTE,

COURT OF CH&NCERY.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart.)

CANADA RAILWAY AND LAND COMPANY.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before Baron Bramwell and a Special Jury.)
BEATSON V. SKENE- LIBEL.
This case was still proceeding when we went to press.]

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr and a Jury.)
'SINGULAR CASE OF BUSTER AND SERVANT-LANG V.
JACOBSON.
This was an action brought by plaintiff, a domestic ser-
vant, against defendant, formerly her master, to recover
£l4 12s. 3d., being wages, wages in lieu of notice, and money
expended for defendant.
Mr. Charnoek, for plaintiff, stated that his client was a
native of Germany, and the most singular feature in the
case would be in reference to the book containing the ac-
count of the money said to have been expended for de.
fendant. Now plaintiff could not bring forward that book,
and would swear that it had been handed to defendant.
Notice had been given to defendant's attorney to produce
it, but that gentleman had retaliated by calling upon plain-
tiff to produce it. She had not it, and the jury would hear
her evidence on the point.
Johanna Lang said she entered the defendant's service
two years ago, at a salary of £lO a year. Defendant was a
widower, and upon the menial() of one of his daughters
plaintiff was raised to the post of housekeeper, at a salary
of £l2 a-year. After the marriage of the daughter defen-
dant himself took a wife. In December there was a sale at
the house, and then defendant owed plaintiff about £8 for
eight months' wages. There was also between £5 and £6
in the book. On the morning of the sale plaintiff asked
defendant to settle up, but ho refused, and said plaintiff had
robbed him of many a shilling. lie also blamed her for the
lass of some wine.
Cross-examined by Mr. li. James—Defendant did not
pay up the wages and settle the book the first Monday in
each month. lie kept the book. Did not ask for the wages
because she did not require them. When pressed frequently
to settle up the book defendant said he was too busy.
Re-examined—On the marriage of the daughter received
gratuities amounting to £8 from the daughter and guests.
This accounted for her having money to lay out.
Two other witnesses deposed to having seen the book.
Joseph Lloyd said he was employed on the day of the
sale to do up the furniture. Saw plaintiff go into de-
fendant's room. She came out crying, and defendant fol-
lowed her out. Witness saw defendant put the book into
his coat pocket. Witness listened to the high words be•
tween plaintiff and defendant, lie blew her up dread
fully.

Cross-examined—Listened because he thought it was too
bad to treat the poor girl in such a manner. As to the
wine, it was a pity it was not all stolen. It was muck.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Jamos—Did you taste it?
Wilnoss (with a wry face)—Yes. I was asked by Lord
Aberdeen's butler to buy some. Didn't buy any. If I
had Lord Aberdeen's butler would have horsewhipped me.
(Roars of laughter.)
Mr. James—NV hy ?
Witness—lt was so bad. (Laughter.)
Mr. James—Very bad.
Witness—Awful. (Laughter.) -
Mr. James—lndeed.
Witness (oxpressively)—Fearful I (Roars of laughtor.)
Mr. James congratulated the jury upon not having to
try the wino now. As to the ease, 265. had been paid into
court.

Defendant was called and said he bad not got the book.
He owed plaintiff no more than £1 Gs. In cross-examina-
tion ho admitted that he had burnt some papers.
The learned Judge pointed out that it was a question for
the jury, and they would say to whom they gave credence.
As to the book, they would recollect the evidence of
Lloyd.

The jury found for tha plaintiff for £l3 Gs. 3d. more than
.he sum paid into court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE--(THIS 1)A Y.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Shop ROBBERY EY A CONFIRMED THlEF.—Susan CO]

a young woman, was charged with stealing a pair of
trowsors from the shop of Mr. Benjamin, clothier, of 34,
Dudley-street, it transpiring in the case that it was not the
prisoner's first visit to the prosecutor'S shop with a similar
result.

Mr. Benjamin said the trousers were hanging outside his
shop at four the previous afternoon, when he saw the pri-
soner seize hold of them and walk off. He pursued and
stopped her, and gave her in charge. •
Groves, 83 F, said while at the station-house a duplicate
fell from the prisoner's hand, which related to a pair of
trowsers stolen from the prosecutor's shop on the previous
day. The trowsers, which were pledged at Mr. Lurtnere's,
St. Martin's-lane, had been identified by the prosecutor.
Whitehouse, 113 F, said the prisoner had been charged
at Bow•street with stealing a pin, and sentenced to two
months, and at that time there were other cases against her.
She had then some duplicates in her possession misting to
property stolen from her lodgings.
Mr. Bingham committed the prisoner for trial, and said
the trousers must bo given up to the prosecutor by the
pawnbroker.

STEALING WORKHOUSE CLOTIIING.—Harriett Holden,
an inmate of St. James's Workhouse, was charged with
stealing several articles of workhouse clothing, the property
of the guardians and directors of the poor of St. James's.
The prisoner had gone out for a holiday, and returned
minus some articles of clothing.
Mr. Bingham said the ratepayers, many of whom prac-
tised great self denial to pay their rates, must be protected,
and committed the prisoner for 21 days.

JUDGMENT -CONYBEARE V. THE NEW BRUNSWICK AND
. _ _

The plaintiff filed his bill to set aside the purchase of 200
preferential shares in this company on the ground of misre-
presentation. Ho alleged—let. That he was induced to
believe that the land was presently available for commercial
purposes, whereas the right to the land was contingent on
making the railway. And 2d. That it had been repre-
sented that dividends would be presently paid to the share-
holders, but no dividends had been paid.
His Honour considered that the plaintiff had failed to
prove his allegations, and dismissed the bill without costs.

ROLLS' COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Rollinly.)
JUDGMENT-CORPORATION OP SONS OF CLERGY V. SUTTON,
His Honour postponed delivering judgment in this suit
till Monday morning at 10 o'clock.