The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-15 00:00:00

COURT OF E%CHEQUER.

Sittings at Guild hall.—(Before Mr. Baron Martin
and a Special Jury.)

MORGAN AND ANOTIIER V. THE LONDON DOCKS
COMPANY-THE - WINE AND SPIRIT TRADE-
ALLEGED FRAUDS IN THE LONDON DOCKS.

The declaration charged that the plaintiffs had de-
livered to the defendants certain valuable wines, to be
securely and safely kept, and that the defendants
so received them, but through negligence the wines
had been adulterated, and materially deteriorated,
and a large quantity had been lost. The defendants
pleaded not guilty, that the plaintiffs did not de-
liver the wines as alleged, and that the defendants
did not accept them.
The case excited a great interest amongst the
wine and spirit trade, a great number of whom
were present during the proceedings.
Mr. Edwin James, Mr. Phipson, and Mr. Nor-
man were counsel for the plaintiffs.
Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Groves, Mr. Giffard, and Mr.
Murphy represented the defendants, the London
Docks Company.
Mr. Edwin James said, that the plaintiff in this
action, the Messrs. Morgan, were wine merchants
of the highest respectability in the city of London,
and were larze exporters of first-class wines.
The issue which the jury had this day
to determine was one of extreme import-
ance, not merely to the community of the
City of London, but to the public at largo who
were consumers of wine.

Mr. Thomas Morgan, the plaintiff, was then
called. He deposed that his firm had been in
existence nearly 100 years, and had up to 1858 de-
posited their consignments of wine in the London
Docks to the amount of about 1,500 pipes in the
year. In July, 1853, they deposited 20 pipes of
port of the vintage of 1851, and marked with a
star, in the London Docks. The vintage of 1851
was one of the best ever known, and the star
showed it was particularly good. He sold one pipe
in March, 1857, to Messrs. Smith, of Pall-mall, and
the quality was objected to. In December, 1857, he
found it so inferior that he had the wine vatted.
Vatting much deteriorated the value of wine, for in
fact it deprived it of its credentials. He estimated
the loss in -vatting fine wine at £2O a pipe,
and as it had to be vatted with another wine
the loss would be in reality £4O per pipe. The
docks estimated the loss at one gallon per pipe per
annum, which he had considered fair. He sold the
other pipe to Mr. Stone, a wine merchant at
Brighton, in August, 1853, who gave• orders to
have it cleared. Witness drew a sample in Sep-
tember, 1857, and found it all but worthless. In
October, 1853, he plaeed in the docks with other
wines upwards of seven pipes of port, consigned
by Gubians, by the ship Montero. It was of the
highest class. In November. 1853, he sold one
pipe to _Messrs. Neighbour and. Son, of Smithfield,
who returned it in the beginning of 1858 as bad.
It had not loft the docks, and was not like port
wino at all. Wine is gauged when it enters the
docks, and re-gauged when it is taken out, and the
duty paid.
The entries in the defendants' books were here
put in, and showed that, although eight samples
and two tastings had been taken from the wine,
the ullage quantity was 115 when it entered, and
the same when regauged five years afterwards.
Examination continued—ln Dec., 1854, witness
received 20-pipes of wine, by the Martello, marked
‘"fLH," double diamond, shipped for a customer,
Air. Henley; 15 of these showed great irregularity
under gauges, and tasted quite differently from one
another, so he had to take them all off Mr. Henley's •
hands. He sold five pipes. The rest were vatted
lin December, 1856. The loss would be £2O per
pipe, even supposing the wine was identical, but it
would be much more if the wine were deteriorated.
In May, 1854, he docked one pipe of 1851 vintage,
marked " TNS," part of parcel shipped to Messrs.
Neighbour, who made a complaint in 1858 that it
was bad. It was now in the docks, and was very
inferior. The gauge of this pipe when docked in
March, 185 i, was 118 gallons ullage, and in March,
1858, when regauged, 117 gallons. On the sth
September, 1851, he decked five pipes of port of the
vintap of 1851, a very fine wine. He sold four of
the pipes to Messrs. Hugh Smith and Co., of Pall-
mall—two in December, 1856, and two in February,
1857. The other he sold to Messrs. Maitland and
Co. The Messrs. Smithy complained of two pipes,
and they were returned on his hands. It was very
inferior, but there was no complaint as to the others.
In January, 1855, he deposited 14 pipes of very
fine port, which ought to be worth £7O now, if it
had not been altered. He sold 11 of these pipes of
wine, and there had been no complaint about them.
Four had deteriorated iu value, and were higher
coloured. They had to be vatted.
Mr. Phipson—Would you give me the price that
they would sell at ?
Plaintiff—l should not like to buy them.
Mr. Edwin James—Perhaps they would do for
an agricultural meeting. (Laughter.)
Sir F. Kelly— Or perhaps for a meeting at Mary-
lebone. (Renewed laughter.)
The plaintiff proceeded to sae, that in January,
1855, he docked 18 pipes of port, marked
double diambnd, which, with other wines, he sold
to Messrs. Lemon, Hart, and Co., in the following
May, at £46 per pipe, and be had to take back the
whole 18 and vat there because they were so infe-
rior. Again he sold to the-same parties 45 pipes
of a stouter bit sound wine. Three were complained
of, and were most inferior—almost useless. On the
same day he deposited another parcel ; of which, as
to 10, there had been no complaint, three had bees
vatted, but were not the subject of this action, and
two were stillin the docks, much deteriorated. Ile
sold two pipes out of a parcel of 35 of the vintage
of 1851, star marked, to Mr. W. Potter, in October,
1856. He had to take one back in November, 1857,
and had to allow £35 on the other. Mr. Potter
said that the one which was returned was perfect
rubbish, and witness thought he was about right.
(Laughter.) None of the wines which formed the
subject of this action had left the docks. The gauge
in January, 1855, when the wine was deposited in
the docks, was 116 gallons ullage, and when re-
rsaucred in. October, 1858, it was still 116 gallons,
et
having been in the interim subjected to five samples
and three tastings. The plaintiff deposed further
that in July, 1855, he deposited 10 pipes, which he
sold in November, 1858, to Mr. Relt James, at -e54
per pipe. In a few days he had to take back six
pipes, and had to allow -1;20 on the other four to in-
duce Mr. James to keep them. The gauges and
the regauges on the lot were the saw, although
they had been esubjected to samples and tastings.
ExaminatiQii continued--In 1831- Ile deposited

five pipes in the docks. He sold three to Messrs.
Pin cent and Co., of Newtown Abbott, Devonshire.
Two gave great satisfaction, and one was returned
as totally different from the others. Witness could
not sell it as good port, and it had been very choice.
Up to the end of 18.54 he had seldom to make any
claims for deficiencies. After the discovery of the
frauds in 1854 the company agreed to allow the
trade for all deficiencies in wines then in the dock,
including the gallon per pipe hitherto excepted.
A letter, dated Feb. 8, 1855, from the secretary
of the Dock Company to the deputy-chairman of
the Wine and Spirit Association, stating that the
company were willing to accede to the suggestion
of the association, to make the allowance on
all wines in the East Vaults in 18,54 of the gullon
per pipe, when the deficiency exceeded that amount,
was here put in.
Sir F. Kelly here read a letter from the company
in reply to a demand for deficiencies by the plain-
tiff, to the effect that the wine on which he claimed
the allowance was not in the East Vault, and there-
fore did not come within the regulation.

The plaintiff—l don't agree with that, because,
according to our books, all our wines aro in the
East Vault..

The plaintiff's examination in chief having been
concluded, the court adjourned at half-past four
o'clock to this day, when the examination will be
proceeded with.

POLICE INTELLIGENC'E—Feb. 12.

MANSION-HOUSE.--Margaret Biamish, with
a little girl about 12 years old, both wretchedly clad,
was charged before Sir R. Carden with begging.
Viscount Raynham said—Yesterday afternoon,
about four o'clock, while walking along Fenchurch-
street, I observed the prisoner sitting with the child
in a doorway. -Whem I came up to her she held out
her hand, and begged of me to give her something.
I did not give her anything, but being struck by
the unfortunate appearance of her child, who
seemed to me to be in a dying state, I watched her.
I saw her get up and go into Gracechureh-street,
where I saw a gentleman give her something, and I
then gave her in charge.
Prisoner—l did not beg of you whilst I was in
the doorway. I was saying my prayers.
Mr. Childs, medical officer of the City of London
Police Force, said the child was brought to him to
examine, which he did, and he found her to be a
mere living skeleton, labouring under disease of
the spine, produced through sheer starvation, which
she might recover from with proper care and atten-
tion ; but, if her present mode of life were con-
tinued, she would certainly live but a very short
time.
Sir R. Carden—What have you to say, prisoner?
Prisoner—l can't help it ; I can't live on 4s. a-
week, which is all I get from my husband at the
most, out of which I have to pay 2s. for lodging.
Officer—Her husband is in court, my lord.
Sir R. Carden—Then let him stand forward.

Husband—l am not able to keep my wife and
child, my lord, because I scarcely earn enough to
maintain myself. I hope you will discharge them
this time. They have never begged before.
Officer—l have known her as a beggar for the
last eight years. She has always taken the child
out with her ever since its birth, and the husband
is always drunk.

husband—lt is false. We have only hem in
London about a year. As for my getting drunk, I
can't afford to do that.
Officer—Why, you were drunk last night when
I came to tell you about this.
Husband—Yes, I know I was last night, because
I fell down yesterday, and my employer gave me
something to drink on that account.
Prisoner—Oh, my lord, could you separate us !
He does not contribute to my support. If I remain
at home I sit starving and without fire.
Sir R. Carden—This gentleman (Viscount Rayn-
ham) is one of the Governors of an hospital where
they cure diseases of the spine, and he very kindly
offers to take your child in. Are you willing to let
her go ?
Prisoner—Well, she don't want to go.
Sir R. Carden—You have never asked her. How-
ever, as you like ; but let me tell you, that if that
child dies through your taking it out begging, you
are as responsible for its death as though you killed
it by violence,
Prisoner—Oh, then, I'll let it go, your worship,
and be very thankful to the kind gentleman, I will.
Sir R. Carden—Well, I shall discharge you this
time ; but if you are again brought before me I
shall deal very severely with yon.
The prisoner was then discharged, and an officer
took charge of the child to take it to the hospital.

BOW-STREET.—Lucy Flick appeared to a sum-
mons to show cause why on order, which she had
obtained to protect her property and earnings
against her husband, Edward George Flick, and his
creditors ahould not be discharged._ _

The proceedings excited considerable interest,
both on account o the novelty of the case, and also
because the magistrates at some other courts have
declared that they had no power to discharge a
protection order.
Edward G. Flick, the complainant, deposed—
This day 12 months, Valentine's-day, 1859, I was
arrested for debt, and taken to Whitecross-street.
A day or two before that date I was living with
my wire. I was in prison about nine months, being
remanded for eight months from the date of the
vesting order. Here is my certificate.
Mr. Jardine (after referring to the certificate)—
I see the vesting order was dated the 2Sth Feb-
ruary. Then you were discharged on the 28th
February ?
Witness—l think it was in November. I had
not deserted my wife prior to my arrest. I was
keeping out of the way for about two months be-
fore, not to desert her, but to avoid being taken.
There was only one judgment against me, and I
thought I could settle that, and so avoid going
through the court.
In cross-examination by defendant's solicitor,
complainant denied that ho had ever ill-used his
wife, or introduced women of bad character to the
house. Was on one occasion brought to this court
for an assault, on the charge of a man whom he
found secreted in his house one night when ht came
home earlier than he was expected. He had gone
home at intervals, chiefly on Sunday, during the
two months that he was out of the way.
Mr. Jardine said this was wholly irrelevant.
Any ill usage, or infidelity would not justify this
order, which had been granted solely on the ground
of desertion. The complainant had sworn that he
had not deserted his wife, and unless the defendant
could show that he had the order must be dis-
charged.
Mr. O'Brien (clerk to the court) here read the
information sworn by the wife when she applied for
the protection order on the 28th October, in which
she deposed that her husband had deserted her in
November, 1858.
,The wife being now sworn, repeated that state-
ment, and was about to go into charges of ill-treat-
&c., but was stopped by the court.
Mr. Jardine—Why did you not tell me your
husband was in prison:?
Defendant—Because I thought he was out. I
had been told ;,co.
Complainant—You knew better. You had been
there to see me till! Sunday before.
John Potter, formerly journeyman to the plaintiff
:
was examined to prove that his master was away
from home for .some time previous to his arrest. As
to the cause of his master's absence he prevaricated
so much as to expose himself to the magistrate's

censure.
said the wife had made what he
lr. Jardine
d calla mistake
mistake as to her husband having wil-
fully deserted her. Still he must observe that she
concealed the feet, of which she was well aware,
that he had been in prison nearly the whole of the
time .of the alleged desertion. Yet she came to this
court and told him (the magistrate) that her hus-
band had deserted her for nearly a year. She thus
obtained the order on the very day wken her
husband was to come out of prison, as if she
expected him home and wanted to be prepared
with the order to resist him. At all events
ho was now here, and swore that he never
meant to desert her, and indeed, as soon as he
recovered his liberty, he went home to claim his
wife and goods. Under these circumstances the
order must now be discharged.

SOUTHWARK.—Richard Harding, a respect-
able-looking man, a journeyman mason, was
brought before Mr. Burcham charged with at-
tempting to commit suicide at London-bridge.
Rogers, 483 A, said that on Sunday night he
was on duty on the Surrey side of London-bridge
about half-past ten, when he was told that a man
had. rushed down the steps, followed by a female.
Witness went there and saw the prisoner at the
bottom calling out, "I am determined to jump in."
His wife had hold of him, pulling him back, and
she requested witness to prevent him from com-
mitting suicide. He accordingly took him into
cushdy.
Mr Burcham asked what state he was in ?
Rogers replied that he was very drunk and
hardly knew.what he was about.
The prisoner replied that was quite true, and
having a few words with his wife, he ran down
the stens to frighten her. He assured his worship
he had no intention of committing suicide.
Mr: Burcham told him he had made a great fool
of himself, and his being locked up served him
right. He hoped it would be a caution to him for
the future. He was then discharged, and left the
court with his wife.
A well-dressed young man, whose connexions
are highly ropectable, was next charged with

jumping off London•bridge, with intent to destroy
himself.

Simon Wood, Thames police•constable No. 7,
brought the prisoner from St. Thomas's Hospital,
where he had been since Thursday night. The
officer was in the police galley at eleven o'clock
that night, when he heard a heavy splash in the
Thames, near the bridge, and on proceeding there
saw the prisoner sink under several barges. He
miraculously appeared again, when Wood at great
risk rescued him from a watery grave.
Mr. Burcham ordered the prisoner to be delivered
up to his relatives, and complimented the constable
on his. bravery.

GO UN TRY MARKETS.

LIVERPOOL-FEB. 14.

At our market to-day there was a good inquiry for
wheat, and pricos closed fully ld per rental dearer on the
week. Barley was the turn dearer. Peas and beans both
is dearer. Indian corn was less excited than on. Friday,
but a fair business was done at fully is 6d per qr. advance
on the week. Oatmeal met more attention at 6d per qr
im-
provement. Flour in moderate request at 6d per sack and
barrel over Tuesday.