The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-14 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 14, 1858.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 13.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
STttings at Nisi Prius at Guildall.—(Before the
Lord Chief Justice and Special Juries.)
This was the first day of the trial of special jury
causes at this sitting.
An action for the recovery of commission, having
occupied the time of the Court for nearly three
hours, was eventually referred, and during the day
no point calling for notice arose in the course of the
trial of any of the cases disposed of.
SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)
It was announced this morning that the Second
Court would be held in the Committee-room No. 1,
an apartment by no means appropriate or conve-
nient for the purpose, and to sitting in which it is
known on that account the learned judges have
always had very great objection.
The learned judge, who 'is usually extremely
punctual, did not appear to take his seat at the usual
hour, and it was understood that this was in con-
sequence of the objection just referred to. After
some short delay it was announced that the learned
Judge would sit in the Council-chamber, whither
accordingly counsel, jurymen, and parties imme-
diately adjourned. It was found that the chamber,
unprepared and unwarmed for the purpose, was
cold and chilly, and great discomfort was thereby
occasioned.
The learned Judge having taken his seat, and
the first case on his list having been settled, the
second was called on.
Mr. J. Thompson applied to his lordship to allow
it to stand over on account of the illness of the
plaintiff's attorney, who was also a witness—of
course upon the terms of paying the costs of the
day, but
Mr. Justice Willes said he had no power to accede
to the application, unless it was consented to.
Mr. Hawkins, for the defendant, did not consent,
and the record was withdrawn.
On the next being called on, the defendant's
attorney-, after the jury were sworn and the case
opened, applied to the learned Judge to permit a
short delay, on account of the absence of his counsel.
Mr. Justice Willes said he should be happy to
take any other casein which the parties were ready,
but otherwise he could not postpone a case already
called on and commenced in due order. It was the
duty of the parties and their counsel to be in atten-
dance at the appointed time, as the jurors were.
The Second Court sat under the authority of an
Act of Parliament (the Common Law Procedure
Act, 1852), for the greater despatch of business and
the convenience of the public. The jury attended,
at some sacrifice of time and comfort, to sit either
in a small chamber, unsuited for a court of justice,
or in a large hall, unwarmed and unprepared for
such a purpose at this inclement season of the year.
That being so, surely the parties ought to be ready
when their cases were called on. The case must
proceed.
Defendant's counsel shortly afterwards arrived.
BROWNING V. REDMAN.

This was an action by a fellowship porter against
a fish salesman for giving him into custody on a
charge of stealing oysters. Pleas, " Not Guilty,"
and a justification under the Metropolitan Police
Act.

Mr. Hawkins, Mr. J. A. Russell, and Mr. Francis
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Knowles for the
defendant.
On the 27th July last the plaintiff, one of the
fellowship porters, in his " turn" went on board a
smack laden with oysters for the defendant, and
was carrying oysters therefrom to the shop of the
defendant, who ordered him to desist, and on his
persisting in removing the oysters gave him into
custody on a charge of; first, for stealing, and then
for unlawful possession of the oysters. The plaintiff
was let out on bail at the station-house, and ap-
peared next day before the Lord Mayor, when Mr.
Wontner for the defendant preferred the charge.
The Lord Mayor declared that he could not deter-
mine the matter, and, as the defendant complained
that the plaintiff annoyed him in his business, bound
the plaintiff over for three months to keep the peace
towards him, and dismissed him. It appeared that
the defendant claimed a right to employ, and had
employed, other fellowship porters to remove the
oysters, and that the plaintiff on his part claimed
to be employed in his turn, independent of the will
of the defendant.
Mr. Justice Willes, alluding to the late case of
" Green v. Alston," in which the right of the day
meters and the night meters had been litigated, in-
quired if it affected the question as to the porters,
Mr. Knowles did not know ; in that case he be-
lieved the meters had failed. His client had suffered
both from meters and porters, and it came to this—
that if he gave a bushel of oysters to his man to
carry, the plaintiff claimed to take them away and
carry them and be paid for it.
Mr. Justice Willes—No doubt there are such
rights to exclusive employment, but they can exist
only by statute or prescription, and certainly their
existence or non-existence cannot properly be tried
by giving a man into custody.
One of the jury observed that such rights did
exist in the city—the new City Reform Bill con-
tained some provisions as to their abolition.
It was elicited that the non-freemen were called
" foreigners" in the city. (Laughter.)
The plaintiff and his witnesses, fellowship porters,
gave evidence as to a usage for their exclusive em-
ployment as far back as their own memory ex-
tended, which was 30 years.
Mr. Hawkins referred to Acts of Common
Council as far back as 1762.
Mr. Locke, as amicus curies, referred to Mr.
Pulling's work on the " Laws and Customs of the
City,"

Mr. Justice Wiles accordingly procured that
work and said it laid the law down on this subject
very well and clearly, and to the effect that the
validity of the prescription had been established in
an action before the late Lord Chief Justice Tindal.
At all events, the right could not be tried indirectly
under colour of a criminal charge. It should be
tried in an action raising properly the question of
right. It was proved that the plaintiff, when given
into charge, said, " Aye, lock me up ; it's just what
I wanted. I want to try the right."
Mr. Justice Willes—That is not the way to do it.
Mr. Knowles' addressed the jury for the defen-
dant, and disclaimed any intention of charging the
plaintiff with felony, for the real object of the pro-
ceedings was to try the right. His client had a
contest with the meters, which was the origin of
this dispute with the porters. The meters claimed
for measuring, but transferred the duties of por-
terage to the fellowship porters. His client con-
tended that when the oysters were sold on board
the buyer was to employ the porters in their turn ;
when they were not sold on board the owner
might remove them by his own porters. The
porters had no right to assert their usage by seiz-
ing the oysters against the will of the owners.
They must bring an action, as the meters had done,
to try their right. The 2d and 3d of Viet., chap.
71, sec, 24, the City Police Act, gave a power of
taking into custody persons charged with having
in their possession or conveying goods reasonably
suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully
obtained.
Mr. Justice Wiles—That must be understood
ejusdem generis, and does not at all apply to a case
of disputed right.
Mr. Knowles--No doubt that is so.
Mr. Justice Willes—The late Lord Chief Justice
Tindal used often to lay it down that civil rights
should not be enforced by criminal procedure.
And there was no justification for giving the
plaintiff into custody. Still, it was not a case for
circumstantial damages.

Mr. Knowles submitted to nominal damages.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 40s.
MABET V. TYSON.
This was an action of ejectment, to recover a set
of chambers in the city.
No one appeared for the defendant, and Mr. W.
Williams, for the plaintiff, claimed to be entitled to
a verdict at once without proof of title, under the
Common Law Procedure Act of 1852.

Mr. Justice Wines directed a verdict accordingly,
and granted a speedy execution.

GOULD V. NEWMAN.
This was an action on the warranty of a
horse, and also to recover the price, £55, the war-
ranty being contained in the following receipt :
" Received, £55 for a bay gelding, warranted
sound and quiet in double and single harness, quiet
to ride and free from vice. If not approved of at
the expiration of one, two, or three months, I un-
dertake to return the price less £6 a month for the

time it may be retained." On trial the horse was
found to be a "roarer," and was returned.

Mr. Power and Mr. Finlasou appeared for the
plaintiff'; no one appeared for the defendant—.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
_ .

The list being finished just before 12 o'clock, the
jury was discharged for the day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

:sittings at Nisi. Prins, at Guildhall, before tho Lord
Chief Baron and a Common Jury.)
WOOD V. DIXON AND UXOR.

Mr. Wilde, and Mr. Charles Pollock were
counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Kn owles and Mr.
Prideaux appeared for the defendants.
This was an action to recover the sum of
£39 16s. 2d. for legacy duty paid by the
plaintiff for his deceased brother. The plaintiff's
father was a distant relative of the late Mr.
James Wood, the celebrated hanker of Glocester,
who, by a codicil to his will, left him a sum of
£20,000. The validity of the codicil was contested,
and years of litigation ensued. At length a Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council decided that the

claim was established; but before the decision was
given the plaintiff's father died, leaving his widow
sole executrix. The original probate of £3OO had to
be increased to a sum under £25,000. The widow
lodged £20,734 14s. Bd. in the Bank of England, as
executrix. The £20,000 was left under the will of
the plaintiff's father, one-half to his widow and the
remainder in moieties to bis two sons, the plaintiff
and Thomas Wood, and to the account of the latter
in the London Joint-Stock Bank the widow paid
the sum of £5,683 13s. as his share of the £20,000,
inclusive of a gratuity of £5OO for his perseverance
in fighting the battle of the codicil to a successful
issue. No legacy duty had ever been paid upon
this sum. In 1845 the plaintiff's brother Thomas
died, and some time afterwards his widow became
the wife of the defendant. In 1854 the plaintiff's
mother died; leaving him all her estate and sole
executor. In 1855 the Solicitor of Stamps and
Taxes wrote for payment of the legacy duties on
plaintiff's as well as his late brother's share of the
£20,000 bequeathed to them under their father's
will. The plaintiff accordingly paid £79 12s. 4d.,
and now contended that as one-fourth of the estate
had been paid over to his brother, during his life-
time, without having the duty deducted from it, he
was entitled to recover from his estate the propor-
tion of the legacy duty amounting to the sum now
sought to be recovered.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.

GARDNER T. KRAPP.
Mr. C. Pollock and Mr. IL James appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Macaulay and Mr. Prideaux
were counsel for the defendant.

This action was brought to recover a sum of
money for work done as a ehromo-lithographer, and
far printing copies in oils and otherwise from the
original drawing. The defendant is the proprietor
of extensive works for making cast steel, at
Essen, in Rhein Preussen. The case occupied the
whole of the latter part of the day, presenting no
facts worthy of recording, and was adjourned till
to-morrow morning.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge-Ordinary and a Special Jury.)
KEATS V. KEATS AND MONTEZUMA.
Mr. Phinn, Q.C., Dr. Adams, Q.C., and Mr. Gif-
fard were counsel for the petitioner; Dr. Phillimore,
Q.C.,and Mr. Thring for Mrs. Keats; and Mr. J.
P. urphy for Don Pedro de Montezuma.
The trial of this petition for a dissolution of mar-
riage on the ground of adultery was resumed at the
sitting of the Court.
Mr. J. P. Murphy addressed the jury in mitiga-
tion of damages, which were claimed by the hus-
band from the co-respondent. He submitted that
damages were not to be awarded as a punishment
for the misconduct of the adulterer, but as a com-
pensation for the injury sustained by the husband,
and that the conduct of the husband in this case
had been such that a nominal sum would be suffi-
cient, especially if condonation were established.
No evidence had been given by any member of Mr.
Keats' family as to the terms upon which they
lived or as to the circumstances under which the
co-respondent was introduced to that family.
Evidence was then given on behalf of the re-
spondent, and it was proved by Mr. Marett, a
cousin of Mrs. Keats, who had been employed by
Mr. Keats first to superintend his property at Bra-
zier's, and afterwards to accompany his son as tutor
upon a continental tour, that at Basle, in the autumn
of 1857, Mr. Keats had spoken to his children about
his wife as a " vile woman," and that during their re-
sidence in Westbourne-terrace he accused her of
having misconducted herself with other people
besides Don Pedro. The respondent's aunt, 'Miss
Amelia Janrin, produced a correspondence which
took place last Oct. between herself and Mr. Keats,
in which he expressed his wish that some arrange.
ment should be made to avoid further litigation;
and his belief that he atud his wife had been de-
ceived, and that she had Dien the victim of a family
conspiracy. Miss Janrin, believing her niece's in-
nocence, spoke of her in that correspondence as
bearing her sufferings in silence, with Christian for-
titude, and living happily, because her conscience
was light. Anxious to bring about a reconciliation,
Miss Janrin came to London from Jersey, where she
resides, in Nov., and had an interview with Mr.
Keats. He received her very kindly, and they
started for St. Leonard's, where Mrs. Keats was
living with her mother. On the road to the station
they called at the office of his solicitor, Mr. Guy,
who said he could not allow Mr. Keats to act on
the supposition of his wife's innocence after the evi-
dence he had received from Ireland relative to her
conduct with Don Pedro. He thereupon refused to
proceed with the negotiation for a reconciliation,
and Miss Janrin returned to St. Leonard's alone.
On the morning of the 27th Nov. the Rev. Henry
de la Cour de Breazy, the husband of Mrs. Keats'
sister, called upon Mr. Keats, who again expressed
a wish to avoid exposure, -and to settle the matter
quietly. They went down to the carriage where
Mrs. De Braazy and Mrs. Keats were waiting, Mr.
Keats not knowing that she was there, and Mr.
Keats took Mrs. De Breazy into the house, and
Mr. De Breazy followed with Mrs.. Keats. She
asked, after -a pause, whether he did not intend to
speak to her. He replied, " Well, Esther, I have not
seen you so long that I don't know what to say."
A long conversation then took place, in the course
of which Mr. Keats abused his refations and his
lawyers, and asked various questions of Mrs. Keats
as to her conduct in Ireland. She said that could
not much matter after the manner in which he had
sent her out of his house, and added that she had
not seen Don Pedro since she left Dublin. They had
lunch, and it was arranged that Mr. Keats and Mr.
De Breazy should go to Mr.-Guy and put a stop to
the legal p roc e cdings. Mr. Keats, on taking leaving of
his wife, shook hands with her, and said, " Well,
my dear, I hope we shall understand one another
better ; but we must not revert to the past." She
asked him to go and see her at St. Leonard's, but
he replied that the matter was so nearly settled he
would not go at present. He went with Mr. De
Breazy and called on Mr. Guy, but, not finding
that gentleman at his office, they made an appoint-
ment for the following Monday. On that day Mr.
De Breazy called on Mr. Keats, and found a note,
saying that he would meet him at Mr. Guy's. Mr.
De Breazy went to Mr. Guy's, but Mr. Keats never
arrived, and Mr. Guy remarked that if Mr. Keats
did such things as he had lately been doing he
would wash his hands of the whole matter.
At the conclusion of the caselor the respondent,
Mr. Phinn tendered evidence in reply, for the
purpose of showing. that Mrs. Keats and Don Pedro
had met since their departure from Dublin, and
contended that this would get rid of any condone:
tion by the husband in ignorance of that circum.
stance.

Dr. Phillimore objected that evidence of facts of
adultery not alleged in the petition was not ad-
missible.
Sir C. Cresswell said it was a very difficult
question. His impression was that the evidence
ought to be rejected, and as, if he acted on that
impression, the doubts that he entertained might
be set at rest by the full Court he should refuse to
receive it. The evidence as to fresh adultery might
be made the foundation of a new suit, although it
was not now admissible.

Evidence was then called for the purpose of show-
ing that in consequence of a fall from a chaise in
1852 the mind of Mr. Keats was somewhat affected,
but Mr. Fennell, the medical man who attended
him, only proved the fact of the accident. The
solicitor for the petitioner, Mr. Guy, was then exa-
mined, and described the conversations with Miss
Janrin and Mr. de Breazy when they had called on
him. He gave in substance the same account of
what passed as the other witnesses, but added that
Miss Janrin at the first interview told him that
she had convinced Mr. Keats of her niece's inno-
cence, to which he replied that he could not allow
Mr. Keats to act on that presumption, as he had
just received evidence which left no doubt of her
guilt.
The learned Judge postponed his summing up
until to-morrow (this) morning, as it was then past
6 o'clock, and the Court adjourned.

Warrington) had also known the prisoner inti-
mately, and gave similar testimony, observing that
if he (witness) had a situation vacant in hisoffice he
should have no objection, notwithstanding the
charge against him, to engage the prisoner.
Mr. J. G. M'Minnies, cotton manufacturer, of
Warrington and Farrington, said the prisoner was
in his service from 1843 to 1850, and during that
time his conduct was everything that could be de-
sired. Notwithstanding Forrest's present position
he (witness) should have the greatest confidence in
him, and would take him again into his former
situation.

Mr. John Harrison, of Warrington, also testified
to the excellent character of the prisoner during the
time he had known him, and that he was one of
Forrest's bondsmen. The proceeds from the sale of
the prisoner's furniture was handed over to the
prosecutor.
Sentence deferred.

MANSLAUGHTER OF A WIFE AT MANCHESTER.
Thomas Clarke, an elderly roan, was indicted for
having on the 16th November last feloniously killed
his wife, Violet Clarke, at Manchester. The pri-
soner and the deceased had lived unhappily together
for 27 years. On the night in question they had a
quarrel, and the prisoner struck his wife several
times on the head, knocked her down, crushed her
against the wall, and otherwise abused her. He
afterwards left home. She became seriously ill, but
notwithstanding her illness on the Monday after
the Saturday when the violence took place she was
out drinking at a neighbour's house, and was brought
home about 2 o'clock in the morning, by her son,
in a state of intoxication. She immediately- after-
wards took. to her bed, and never left it alive.
Death was caused by a rupture of the bladder,
which, it was contended for the prosecution, had
been occasioned by the injuries inflicted by the vio-
lence of the prisoner.
The case was proceeding when our parcel was.
despatched.
A CHARGE OF PERJURY AT WORSLEY, NEAR MAN-

CHESTER.
James Berry was charged with committing wil-
ful and corrupt perjury at Worsley, on the 17th
ult. The prisoner was the father of an illegitimate
child by a single woman of the name of Hum-
phreys. The man paid towards the child for about
six weeks ; but on his ceasing to pay, and also mar-
rying another woman, Humphreys applied for a
summons, and in order to obtain it had to swear
that the prisoner had paid some money within 12
months, as the child was more than a year old.
The woman herself, and another female, swore to
his having paid certain monies within the limited
time, and also stated certain other things, all of
which the prisoner on his oath positively denied.
Several witnesses were called to prove the case of
the prosecution. The defence was based on the
construction which ought to be put on the statute
touching the limitation of time.
The prisoner was found guilty. Sentence deferred.
PROSECUTION UNDER THE FRAUDULENT TRUSTEES