The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-11 00:00:00

happened to be the plaintiff in this action. (Laugh-
ter.) He argued that the plaintiff's father had acted
most imprudently in allowing the engagement to
take place without the sanction of the defendant's
parents. It was greatly to the defendant's
credit that he had never attempted to
take an unfair or dishonourable advantage of
the plaintiff. Neither party had the least
stain on their characters ; and he hoped that En-
sign Burke would at some future day assist at the
nuptials of the plaintiff wi'h s9me sensible man,
whose ambition would be limited to less than eight
bridesmaids. (Laughter.) He contended that a
small sum would compensate the plaintiff for the
injury she bad sustained, and that her wounded
affections would heal up as the wound which the
defendant had received in the service of his country,
and that she would soon cease to feel its effects
altogether.

Mr. Baron Martin, in summing up, said that the
only question for the jury was the amount of
damages which would compensate the plaintiff, and
in estimating them they should consider the loss
which a person in the plaintiff's station in life had
sustained in not being made the wife of a captain
in her Majesty's genic(' with an income of 4001.
per annum.

The jury, after a brief consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages 3501.

POL -CE TELLIGEACE—Feb. 10.

GUILDHALL. —SERIOUS CHARGB. --Mr. Thos.
Staley Vessey, a solicitor, residing at 3, Fairfield-
terrace, Stepney, and Edward Charles Jones, a
labourer, employed in the Tower of London, who
gave his address, 7, Severn-street, Church-lane, St.
George's-in the-East, were brought up in the cus-
tody of Spittle and Moss, two able detectives, be-
fore Sir Peter Laurie, the former charg,d with
stealing 2001. in 201. notes, and the litter with
feloniously receiving one of the notes, knowing it
to have been stolen.
Mr. Scoble, instruc'ed by Mr. Roy, the solicitor
to the London and Westminster Bank, attended
for the pro +ecution, aed sta el that the charge
agniust the prisoner Vessey arose out of the fol-
lowing circumstances. Upon three separate occa-
sions during the months of June and Septemi er
last, be paid into the London and Westminster
Bank sums to the total amount of 2001. upon the
deposit account, and in December following he pre-
sented all three of the deposit notes for payment,
and requested that he might have the amount in
ten 201. notes ; but the clerk paid him by mistake
twenty 201. notes, making 2001. more than the pri-
sioner was entitled to upon his deposit notes. The
prisoner counted the notes and took them away,
and upon the clerk making up the books the error
was discovered, and the prisoner was subse-
quently applied to, but be denied having
received more than the amount of his depo-
sit notes, and produced nine of the tea 20 . notes
which he was rightly entitled to, alleging he had
pail the other away. The learned counsel said he
would show that Jones was found dealing with one
of the notes of the amount overpaid on the same
evening thee the prisoner had been asked about
them, and after ceiling the prisoner's servant he
proposed withdrawing the charge against Jones,
and taking his evidence against Vessey.
Chas. Wco lan said—l am a clerk in the London
and Westminster Bank, Lothbury. On the 17th
Dec. last the prisoner Vessey presented the three
deposit notes produced for payment. They are
dated 3d June for 1201., sth June for 50/., and the
15th Sept. for 301. I paid them over the counter to
Vessey, who asked fcr the amount in ten 20/. notes.
I gave him twenty 20/. notes, all following num-
bers, from 85,231 to 85,250 inclusive, which he
counted an 1 then left the bank. I made an entry
in the book of twenty 201. notes of those numbers
le.ting paid to Vessey, but in extending the account
I entered the amount as ten 201. notes, I also paid
him 4/. 141. 2d. in cash, for interest upon the
amount of the deposit notes. We discovered there
was a deficitney in the cash account to the amount
of 2001. the same evening, but we did net find out
in what manner the error occurred until the 19th,
t TO days after, and then I ascertained I had given
the prisoner 20 notes instead of 10. On the even-
Lug of the 19th, I, with Mr. Parkes, one of our
clerks, went to Vessey's house, and was referred
to the Fountain publichouse, where he found the
rr *.ner Vessey. I asked him if he ha .1 been to
the London and Westminster Bank on the 17th of
December, and he said he had, and received ten 201.
notes. I said ho had received twenty 20/. notes,
and he again said, " I had paid him only ten." Mr.
Parkes then asked him for the Numbers of the notes
he had received, and he replied, "I am a lawyer,
and will not be interrogated." I asked him if he had
parted with the notes, and for some time he would
not answer; but de ultimately said he had changed
ono of them. I pressed him to produce the others,
and he left, as if for that purpose ; he returned in
about half an hour, and asked if we had been
making inquiries about him at the police-court.
Mr. Parkes said he bad. Upon which Vessey said
he had a groat mind not to give any information at
all, and he then left the room. I saw him again
on the 21st, and I was alone. Upon that occasion
he showed me nine 201. notes, numbered 85,232 to
85,210 inclusive.
Eliza Richardson said—l am a servant to Mr.
Vessey. I know Jones. I remember giving him
a 201. note to change about the middle of December
last. I found the note under the table in the
kitchen of Mr. Vessey's house, but I did not men-
tion 'anything about it to my muter. I made no
inquiries about the note, and heard nothing more
of it until very lately. Jones brought me back the
change, 17/. 10'., and said he had bought a watch
with the balance, and he would repey me the
amount. I have since heard that the note was
stopped at the Bank, and that they had paid Mr.
Vessey too much. I afterwards gave the money to
Jones to mind for me.

Mr. S,:oble- said he now propose] to call Jones as
a witness.

Mr. Martin (the chief clerk) asked if the prose-
cutors wished to withdraw the charge aga'n*t
Jones

Mr. S;:ol,le repliel in the affirmative.
Ed. C. Jones was then removed from the dock to
;he witness-box; and examinvd. He said—l am a

labourer, employed in the Tower. v I know the
witness Eliza Richardson. I remember receiving
from her, in December last, the note produced,'
No. 85,241. The add. ess on the back is not, my
writing, but the name is. The address was written
in my pr:•sonce by Mr. Childs, the pawnbroker, of
whom I bought It watch and chain fur 21. ss. I
spent other ss. among my friends, an gave
171. 108. to the witness Richardson. I heard
nothing of this note again until last Monday, when
Richardson came to my house for me t) go to
Mr. Vessey's. I saw the priso•ler, and he told
me he was very sorry I had changed the note, as it
was his loss. Ho said I Might get into trouble
about it, and then showed me how I might write my
name in different styles. He told me he heard that
the detectives were after me for changing the nob,
and that they would tap me on the shoulder and
ask me how the watch went. He told me also how
to ehai;ge my appearance. I gave the watch to Mr.
Vessey, as he said I had better not carry it about
me.

Str Peter Laurie saki it was a very serious charge,
but, as it was his intention to remand the case to
afford time for further inquiries, as well as to en-
ah!e the
.prisoner to prepare his answer to the
charge, he Should refrain from expressing any
opinion upon the case.

Mr. Stoddard, who appearei on behalf of the
prisoner, said—Mr. Vessey, though now out of
business, was a respectab!e nian, and had been in
practice as a solicitor for 30 years, and he the. efore
hoped the magistrate would accept bail for him.
Mr. Scoble applied for the girl Richardson and
Jones to be bound over in sureties to attend at
the next examination.

Sir Peter Laurie acceeded to' both applications,
and the prisoner was then remanded, with permis-
sion to put in bail in two sureties in 2001. each,
and his own recognisances.

BOW-STREET.—LORDCAMPBELL'S ACT.--In
the course of the evening a large quant,ty of a tides,
the result of further seizures under Lord Camp.
bell's Act; Virai brought into court.
Inspector Mitchell had executed a warrant at a
house inChsndos-street, Covent-garden where he
had seized four 'daguerreotypic and 1/iphotogra-
phic slides for the stereoscope. Most of them repre-
sented naked human figures, and were evidently
taken from life.

Mr. Henry having examined a few of them, and
declared them to be of the most obscene and. dis-
gu9ting character,
Mr. Bodkin applied for a summons against the
shopkeeper, which was granted.
IntpeoTor_Mackenze produced a quantity of pipes,
pipe-hea&,.tobacco-s' oppers, and pouches, of vari-
ous degrees-of obscenity and indecency, seized on
premises in. High Holborn. A similar summons
was issued.
LuuLlier ese where obsc3ne pipes had been
seized a summons was also granted.

OLE RICE SWELL. --THE ASSAULT UPON A
WORKHOUSE. GIRL. —Mrs. Augusta Laigb, a
lodging-Iv:use-keeper, who, it v$ as stated, was
formerly in the service of a nobleman connected
with the army, residing at 10, Park-place, Liver.
pool-road, appeared befcre Mr. Tyrwhitt, in answer
to her rceogoi,ances, charged with comm►tting a
series of violent and murderous astaulis upon Ann
De in, whom- she had t tken as scrrant from tlr®
Islington Workhouse.
The case excited a great deal of in' eresf, and the ,