The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-19 00:00:00

LLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
,Sittings in Banco before the Lord Chief Justice and Jus-
tices Willes, Byles, and Keetind.)

GYE AND HUGHES.
Mr. Bovill moved, on the part of the defendant, for a
rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why there
should not be a new trial on various special grounds. Tho
action was brought by Mr. Gye to recover the sum of £5,000
and various other items in respect of the breach of an agree-
ment in respect of her Majesty' s Theatre. The case was tried
in London, before the Lord Chief Justice, when a verdict
was returned for the plaintiff, with £6,7201 damages. The
circumstances of the case were, that Mr. Hughes had ob-
tained a writ of Elegit against Mr. Lumley, and had ob-
tained possession of the premises, and then entered into an
agreement with Mr. Gye for the possession of the theatre,
at the rental of £5,000 a year. It, however, turned out
that Mr. Hughes had no legal power to demise the theatre,
and therefore the sums paid to him had been improperly
obtained. The defence being, that Mr. Gye knew well all
the circumstances, and merely engaged the theatre to shut
it up, and increase the interest of Covent-garden.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.

.ADVERTISING.-IMPORT.ANT VERDICT.

FAITLEENER V. LETTS.

This was an action tried at the Sheriffs' Court (yester
day) before Mr. Kerr and a jury.
Mr. Buchanan, for the plaintiff, stated that his client
was a literary gentleman, and defendant the proprietor of
" Letts' Diaries." The action was brought to recover
£5 55., for writing a series of complimentary reviews and
causing the same to be inserted in London and provincial
newspapers. Plaintiff had also collected, in a neat book,
the articles in question, and defendant refused to pay him
for his services.
Plaintiff was called, and said he was editor of anewspaper.
He had been requested by Mr. Hogg, defendant's foreman,
to write the reviews, and it was with great difficulty (after
failures) that he succeeded. He did succeed, and by the
desire of Hogg, collected the reviews, in all about 12, in a
handsome book. Plaintiff was a literary gentleman.
Mr. Stammers (instructed by Mr. Aubin, of Moorgate-
street) asked plaintiff to define what he meant by a literary
gentleman, but plaintiff declined.
Mr. Lawrence, a gentleman, 25 years in the literary pro-
fession, said such reviews as plaintiff had written would
range from 10s. Gd. to 215., but editors generally did not
insert them unless as advertisements. Each newspaper
had a literary critic, whose duty it was to criticise books.
Mr. Stammers then called the attention of the Court to
the fact that in January last the plaintiff had sued defendant
for advertisements inserted and recovered. Now, plaintiff
had no right to split his cause of action, and having done
so, could not recover.
Mr. Hogg said that plaintiff had introduced himself to
the firm as an advertising agent, and as such received
orders. Witness never employed him to write the reviews.
Had received a book containing advertisements and about
four reviews, but that had been mislaid.
Two advertising agents deposed that it was not usual
to pay for such reviews ; and after Mr. Buchanan
had addressed the jury, his Honour said it was not
creditable for any man to boast of influence
with newspapers, which were, fie could say, con-
ducted on a most honourable and pure principle. Plain-
tiff had mentioned "peculiar" people he had to see, but
it was well known that the literary critics were bound to
take notice of such books as reached them through the office,
for which they were paid by the office. It was difficult to be-
lieve that any man could criticise a book unless connected
with the newspaper in which the review appeared. If the
jury thought plaintiff had been employed, then he was
entitled to recover. If, on the other hand, defendant had
not employed him, and the review had been written unsoli-
cited, then defendant was entitled to the verdict.
The jury immediately found for defendant.
His Honour allowed costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENC'E.—( This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ROBBERY AT A SYNAGOGUE OT VALUABLE SCARFS.
—Morris Raphael, of 24, New-street, Gravel-lane,
Houndsditch, a warehouseman, was charged before Mr.
Bingham, with stealing at the synagogue, St. Alban's-
place, St. James's, some silk scarfs, of the value of £35, the
property of the members of the synagogue.
Mr. Samuel Victor Abrahams, of 8, Bloomsbury-place,
Bloomsbury, one of the overseers of the synagogue, St.
AlbLua's-place, said that between the Ist and 7th of April a
number of silk scarfs, belonging to the members, were
missed from the box in which they were kept, and after see-
ing a number which were pledged, was able to identify one
as his own property—it being of the value of £7. The pri-
mer being the nephew of the beadle of the synagogue had
access to the place. The missing scarfs were used by the
members in the service, and were of the value of £35.
Mr. William Fryett, jun., son of Mr. Fryett, 16, White-
chapel -road, pawnbroker, produced two scarfs pledged by
the prisoner on the 16th April for 155., one of which was
identified by Mr. S. V. Abrahams as his property.
Mr. Lewis Henry Braham, solicitor, of 12, Furnival's-
inn, Holborn, identified two scarfs produced as his pro-

perty.
Wm:Howell, assistant to Mr. Barker, pawnbroker, 91,
Houndsditch, said the two scarfs were pledged by the
prisoner with another one for .C 1 as., early in April.
Sarah Josephs, of 31, Castle-street, Leicester-square,
employed as a cleaner at the synagogue, said between the
let and the 6th April she saw the prisoner at the synagogue
trying to open the boxes where the scarfs were kept with
a key.
Mr. Binzham committed the prisoner, whose family have
been employed at the synagogue with credit for 40 years,
for trial.

CONVICTION UNDER TILE FACTORY

ACT.

THAMES.
DARING HIGHWAY ROBBERY.—ArIdreW Fitzharris, a
tall and powerful fellow, aged 18, who was described as a
labourer, but who is known to be a most notorious and
desperate thief, was charged with stealing a valuable gold
watch from the person of Mr. Charles Mason, landlord of
the Standard public-house in Well-street, Wellclose-square.
This case has been twice remanded to enable the police
to trace the watch, which the constables engaged in the
case have not succeeded in doing. A few days since Mr.
Mason was passing along Albert-street, Shadwell, and saw
the prisoner in conversation with a woman, directly after he
had passed them he (the prisoner) made an attack upon
Mr. Mason, struck him, and snatched his watch from him.
The prisoner ran away with the watch, and Mr. Mason
pursued him and called out " Stop thief." A police-con-
stable, named James Howe Richards, 277 K, stopped the
prisoner, who ran directly into the policeman's arms.
The prisoner denied having committed the robbery or
that he ran awayT
Richards—Ho was running. He was out of breath. He
ran into my arms.
The prisoner called a woman of doubtful character, who
said that the day after the robbery she saw a max called
Peky with a gold watch which he said he picked up in
Albert-street. She told him that a man was in custody for
stealing the watch, and he ought to give it up and prove
the man's innocence. Peky afterwards told her that he
had pawned the watch for £4, and that it was with a pawn-
broker in Whitechapel.
Mason said his watch was a gold engine-turned one.
The magistrate said the evidence for the defence was per.
fectly consistent with the prisoner's guilt, and committed
him for trial.

A singular case, resulting in the conviction of
Messrs. Ainley and Taylor, manufacturers, o
Meltham, near Huddersfield, was heard ster-
day before J. Brooke, W. Willans, S. W. Haigh,
and Charles Brook, Esqs., at the Huddersfield
Police-court. A charge was preferred by Mr.
Bates, sub-inspector of factories, to the effect
that the defendants, being occupiers of certain mill
premises where young persons under the age of
18 were employed, did knowingly obstruct the nub.
inspector in the execution of the powers entrusted
to him by the Act of Parliament, by " attempting
to conceal and prevent such young persons appear-
ing before the sub-inspector to be examined by him."
On the 14th of February last, Wr. Bates, accom-
panied by a police-officer, visited the mill about a
quarter to 7 in the evening, when all the young
persons under 18 should have left, and having
visited several of the rooms, they arrived at a land-
ing on the second story of the building, where the
inspector perceived three young persons whom he
believed to be under the age of 18. Stationing the
police-officer at the door, the sub-inspector walked
to the far end of the room, where these young
people were washing, for the purpose of satisfy-
ing himself as to their age. Before arriving there,
however, they had concealed themselves, and could
nowhere be seen ; and after a prolonged search
in different parts of the room, one of the lads
was ultimately found in a very dangerous position
beneath a scribbling machine, which was in motion
at the time. The lad was dragged out by the heels,
and the search for the other parties renewed; but
here an insuperable obstacle was presented by the
whole of the gas in the room being turned off, and
the inspector and the officer were left in no very
safe position, among the working machinery.
Whilst thus groping their way about, a winnow
near where the police officer was standing was
swung open, and ab3y was assisted to get out, being
taken charge of when outside by a man on the
top of a ladder. The officer attempted to gain the
window, but was prevented by kiu nbling over a
quantity of wool, and with difficulty both he and
the inspector groped their way in darkness tot he
lower part of the mill, a light having been re-
peatedly refused them. They then left the building
amidst the hisses of a number of the workpeople.
The evidence for the defence only substantiated
these statements, and the magistrates, in inflicting
a penalty of £5 and the expenses, commented on
the conduct of Messrs. Ainley and Taylor in their
attempted defence of such proceedings.