The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-09 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON, ' WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 9, 1859.

under arms ? Why did he not seize, manacle, and
imprison the doting or delirious Dandalo, and all
that appertained unto him ? Why did he not dis-
solve the disaffected Assembly, issue a proclama-
tion suspending liberty of the press, and place the
wrongheaded but helpless infants under martial
law ? That this would have been the course
adopted in former times by a Tory statesman, act-
ing on behalf of a Tory Goverment at home, admits
not of question; but there are signs in this as in
other instances, that Tory politicians have reamed
and unlearned much ; and that they have done so,
and are seeking at length to adapt themselves
to the humane and enlightened spirit of the time,
is the real head and front of their offending.—
Daily News.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Feb. 8.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before
Lord Campbell and a Common Jury.)

COLLINS v., THOMAS.-ASSAULT AND FALSE

IMPRISONMENT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff,
Miss Collins, to recover damages for an assault and
false imprisonment, alleged to have been inflicted
upon her by the defendant.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine appeared for the plain-
tiff; Mr. Ribton conducted the case for the de-
fendant.

It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff
occupied a house, No. 109, Cornwall-road, Lambeth,
which she considered she was entitled to the lawful
possession of; and that the defendant, who was a
warehouseman, in Cheapside, bought the house at
a sale by auction, and, considering himself the
lawful owner of it, demanded posssession of it,
which the plaintiff refused to give him up. Unable
to obtain possession, he employed a man named
M'Grath, a bricklayer's labourer, and two other
men, to turn the plaintiff out of the house, and for
two days she was barricaded, a close prisoner, in
her room by them, and kept, according to her evi-
dence, without food. On the 4th of November the
men employed to obtain possession forced their
way into her room, threw her on the floor, and,
seizing her by the shoulders and feet, carried her
into the street, and laid her on the pavement. In
ejecting her in this manner plaintiff deposed that
they used great violence, exposed her by pulling
up her clothes, and inflicted several severe bruises
on her person. Indignant at such a proceeding,
and smarting under the injuries, she started to her
feet, and thinking she had been illegally ejected,
rushed to the front window, broke a pane with her
open hand, and thrusting her head through the
aperture to force her way into the premises, cut
her head and face in the attempt. She was then
given into custody of a policeman who was present,
by the desire of defendant, and was taken to the
station-house. This constituted the false impri-
sonment : liberated by the magistrate, and acting
under the advice of her attorney, she went the next
morning, the sth of November, to the house, and
armed with a hammer and chisel, elevated himself
on a chair, and removing shutters and iron bars,
then broke a pane of glass, through which she tried
to force her person. Unable to effect an entry
through so small an aperture, she was aided by a
sympathising woman, who applying her hands and
strength, forced her into the room. Finding her
self once more in possession, the plaintiff bade defi-
ance to the defendant, and exclaimed—" It is an
excellent lark—l'll lose the last drop of my blood
on the floor, and die by M'Grath, before I sur-
render." She was ultimately dispossessed.
Mr. Thomas, the defendant, examined, deposed
that no more force than was necessary to remove
the plaintiff from the premises had been used by
M'Grath and the other men employed by him to
get the plaintiff out, and obtain possession of the
house for him. He positively denied that violence
had been used on the occasion in ejecting her, and
that everything should be done as mildly and
legally as possible, he called a policeman, who was
present at, and witnessed the whole proceeding.
It was elicited from the man M'Grath that he
was in possession of part of the house at the time,
under an agreement between him and the defend-
ant ; that he received a pound a week for his ser-
vices, and altogether between two and three pounds
for the job of ejecting. the plaintiff. It was also
elicited, in cross-examination, that he had allowed
the plaintiff to come in and take possession of the
house, under the inducement held out to him by
her that she would give him £5O for the permis-
sion—and all this while he was under the terms of
a written agreement to the defendant to live as
tenant and keep the house for him. It was also
elicited-that M'Grath, while he was in -bccupation,
did not pay relit either to the late landlord, Mr.
Anselkor to the defendant.

Mr. Sergeant Ballantineand Mr. Ribton having
addressed the jury in favour of their respective
clients,

Lerd Campbell summed up, and said—The first
question for the jury was, whether the plaintiff
had or had not obtained possession of the premises
by fraudulent means, in her negotiations with the
man M'Grath ; and in the second place they would
say whether, in their opinion, more force was used
in ejecting her from the premises than was really
necessary to remove her. If they were of opinion
that violence was used in removing her, and that
injuries were inflicted upon her person, they would
find a verdict in her favour, with such reasonable
and moderate damages as, in their opinion, would
be sufficient to meet the case ; but if they thought
she obtained possession of the premises fraudehtly,
and that violence in removing her from them had
not been used, they would find their verdict for
the defendant.

The jury, without a moment's hesitation, de-
livered a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
,Sittings at Nisi Prins, in Middlesex, before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
TURNBULL AND ANOTHER V. TALLIS-ALLEGED
NUISANCE.
Tho defendant in this case was Mr. Tallis, the
well-known printer, and damages were claimed
from him upon the ground of an alleged nuisance
caused by the working of a steam-engine and seve-
ral printing machines belonging to him. The de-
fendant pleaded not guilty, and that the alleged
nuisance arose necessarily and unavoidably from
the reasonable use and exercise, in a convenient
and proper place, of a lawful, useful, and necessary
trade and art, and that he made no more noise in
the working of the steam-engine and presses than
he lawfully might.
Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. Macnamara ap-
peared for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Wilde, Q.C.,
and Mr. Rew, for the defendant.
The plaintiffs kept a lodging-house, No. 31,
Arundel-street, Strand, which they held on lease
for thirty-one years from 1852, at £63 a year. The
defendant's premises were in Water-street. The
defendant printed the Daily Telegraph, the Illus-
trated News of the World, and other publications,
and the noise complained of arose, it was said, prin-
cipally from the working of one of Hoe's American
machines. The noise was described by one of the
plaintiffs as " a rumbling, shaking, flapping noise,"
and by the other like the noise from " travelling in
a railway carriage through a tunnel all night." It
was said to be so serious that it prevented people
from sleeping at night, and seriously damaged the
plaintiffs in the way of their business. It was also
said that the shaking would in time injure the sta-
bility of the plaintiffs' house. It was suggested that
the inconvenience might be prevented by the ma-
chines being placed in the basement, by the win-
dows being lessened and kept shut, by the employ-
rpent of substances to deaden sound;and by other
means.
On the other hand it was said that the defendant's
machines and premises were constructed and fitted
in a proper manner, and that the noise arisingfrom
the machines was not such as could create any an-
noyance.
The case was partly heard yesterday, and last
night three of the jury went to inspect the machine
when at work, and went also to the plaintiffs' house
to see whether there was or not any serious annoy-
ance. They, however, did not agree in their opinion,
for two of them stated this morning that they ex-
perienced nothing unpleasant, whilst the other one
thought there was sufficient to prevent anybody en-
joying sleep.
After a great deal of evidence had been laid before
the jury it was agreed that a verdict should be en-
tered for the plaintiffs for 405., and that it should
be referred to some practical man to say what steps
should be taken to get rid of any annoyance that
here might be from the working of the machines.

PIPER V. BURBIDGE-STREET ACCIDENT.
This was an action to recover damages for in
juries sustained by the plaintiff through the negli.
gence of the defendant's servant.
Mr. Sergeant Thomas and Mr. Griffiths appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Parry for the
defendant.

The plaintiff, an old man, is a cab-driver, and the
defendant is a hat manufacturer, in Southwark.
The accident happened on the evening of the
23d of April last. The plaintiff was standing
beside his cab on the stand, in Bridge-street,
Blackfnars,.tying
a handkerchief round his head,
and was using the window in one of the doors as
a looking-glass. The defendant's cart was coming
along at a moderate pace, when it unfortunately
struck him,knocked him down,and broke his thigh.
The plaintiff was in the hospital for two months, '
and even down to the present time he was obliged
to use crutches. He had lived on charity ever since
the accident. lie had not been able to do any work
since, and he expressed his belief that he would

never be able to work any more. It was said that the
cart ought to have been nearer to the near kerb. -
For the defendant it was submitted that this was
no negligence, and that the road being clear the
driver had a right to go along any part of it. Tho
accident, it was said, had happened in consequence
of the plaintiff having stepped back four or five feet
at the moment the cart was passing, and so came in
contact with the wheel ; and that, under these cir-
cumstances, it was impossible for the driver to
avoid the accident.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
Damages, £2O.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Feb. 8.

BOW-STREET.—William Whitehead Chandler,
a well-dressed man of about 30 years of age, was
charged with uttering two forged cheques, £440
and £250 respectively, and one forged Bank of
England note for £lO.
Mr. Mullins prosecuted on behalf of the Commit-
tee of Bankers ; and Mr. Humphreys, jun., appeared
for the defendant.

It appeared that on the 12th of November, a
cheque for £44owa.s presented at Drummond's bank,
Charing-cross. It was drawn upon them and
signed " Geo. W. Chambers." Mr. George Wilton
Chambers, of Rotherham, had an account there,
and as the signature appeared to be his, the money
was paid in four £lOO notes and four £lO notes.
On the same day one of the £lOO notes was changed
at Mr. Shouts', jeweller and money changer, at
lnightsbridge, for £3O worth of Irish and Scotch
' notes and £7O in English notes and money. The
assistant at Mr. Shouts' identified the prisoner as
the person who changed the £lOO note. On the
same day another £lOO note was changed at
Messrs. Bult and Co.'s bullion-dealers, Lombard-
street, by a person (not identified), who took £93
in French money, and the rest in English.
Mr. Chambers deposed that the signature, though
somewhat resembling his writing, was a forgery.
Mr. Mullins applied for a remand on this charge
.as further evidence would be produced. The wit-
nesses wilco had been examined might, however, be
at once bound over to appear at the trial, unless
Mr. Humphreys thought he should want them in
the meanwhile.

Mr. Humphreys—No, I don't want them at all.
(A laugh.)
They were accordingly bound over.
In the second case it was proved that the £250
cheque in question, which purported to be drawn
by Dr. William Jones, of Albany-street, on the
West-end branch of the Union Bank of Lmidon,
Argyle-place, Regent-street, was presented at .that
bank on the 22d Jan., and was presented in four
£5O notes and ten £5 notes. On the same day the
prisoner purchased £l5O worth of French Napoleons
at Mr. Massey's, money-changer, Leadenhall-street,
and paid for it with three of the £5O notes. The
fourth was passed on the same day to Mr. Smart,
a bullion dealer, in Princes-street, 'Leicester-square.
The prisoner was committed on this case also,
and the charge relating to the £lO note was next
taken.

The note was produced by Mr. George Brown,
landlord of the Shades Tavern, Charing-cross. In
the summer of 1857 the prisoner stayed at his house
on three several occasions, for a few days at a time.
On the third occasion he went away without pay-
ing his bill. About six months afterwards he called
again and paid it with the £lO note in question.
He got the change, went away, and witness never
saw him again till he was in custody. The note
passed through Drummond's bank without detec-
tion.

Mr. Mullins said there were seven other charges
against him of passing forged notes.
Mr. Humphreys—He tells me he has an answer
to every charge.
He was remanded.

CLERKENWELL.—CAUTION TO THE COMMER-
CIAL WORLD.—John Morris Reid, alias John Camp-
bell, Samuel Thompson, Anna Thompson, and Thos.
Smith, who have for some time been carrying on
business as the Mercantile Loan Fund Association
Office, 2, Weymouth-terrace, New North-road, Lon-
don, N., were placed at the bar on remand, before
Mr. Corrie, charged with having unlawfully amongst
themselves awl with divers other persons conspired,
combined, confederated, and agreed by certain un-
lawful devices, feloniously and fraudulently to
cheat and defraud certain persons of their moneys,
and with having in pursuance of and according to
the said conspiracy and agreement amongst them-
selves obtained by such devices of and from divers
of her Majesty's subjects their moneys, against the
peace, &c.
The particulars of the former examination have
already appeared in this journal. The court was
crowded to excess. Although Mr. Corrie, on the
last occasion, expressed a wish that some one should
attend to prosecute on behalf of the police, no one
was present to do so, and Inspector Whicher, of the
detective force, who had charge of the case, had to
call the witnesses himself.
The first witness called was
Mr. James Hunt Otway, who said—l reside at
Lower Stonnall, Staffordshire, and am an agent. I
first saw the advertisement of the Mercantile Loan
Society, 2, Weymouth-terrace, .New North-road,
London, published in the Birmingham Journal.
The advertisement was similar to the one I now
produce, which I cut out of one of the same journals.
I wrote a letter about the 13th December to a John
Campbell, 2, Weymouth-terrace, New North-road,
and about the 16th of the same month I received
the following letter:—
"London, 2, Weymouth-terrace, New North-road,
Dec. 16, 1858.
" reply to your favour of the 13th, I beg to hand
the enclosed form. You require an advance of £lOO, repay.
able in five years, quarterly ; our interest charges in the
form are calculated for one year only; the interest Ist year,
£5 ; 2d, £4 ; 3d, £3 ; 4th, £2 ; sth, £1; repayable with
principal. Respecting agency, I beg to inform you that we
have two classes of agents, viz., in every principal town
private inquiry agents, and also travelling agents, through
whom we transact all our business, and who receive in-
structions to visit personally when considered necessary.—
I am, dear Sir, faithfully yours,
" JNo. CAMPBELL, Resident Manager."
I filled up the form, wrote a letter, and placed them
in an envelope, and gave it to a friend, named
Pearson, with £1 ls. to obtain a Post-office order
for that amount at Walsall, in favour of John
Campbell. On the 22d December I received a
letter, of which the following is a copy :
" 2, Weymouth-terrace, New North-road,
London, N., Dec. 21, 1858.
" Dear Sir,---I am instructed to acknowledge the receipt
of your proposal for a loan of £lOO, and to inform you the
negotiation shall have the best attention of the company.—
I am, dear sir, faithfully yours,
"Mr. J. H. Otway. "JNO. CAMPBELL."
-I also received, on the 28th, the annexed letter
:
"2, Weymouth-terrace, New-North-road, N.,
London, Dec. 27, 1858.
"Dear Sir,--I have the pleasure to inform you that at
the meeting of the board this day it was resolved to grant
you the advance of £lOO for five years, but it will be neces-
sary (before handing you the draft for the amount) for one
of our gentlemen to wait upon you and take your signature
to the bond. For this purpose, you are required to remit a
sufficient sum to cover his travelling expenses, &c., say £2
10s., which it is necessary should be complied with by re-
turn of post to enable us to carry out our arrangements for
the week; therefore, on receipt of your reply with remit-
tance, instructions will be given the gentleman to wait upon
you without delay.---I am, dear sir, faithfully yours,
"Pro. JNO. CAMPBELL,
"It. MANN.
"Mr. J. Otway, Lower Stonnall, near Walsall."
The same day I obtained a Post-office order at Lich.
field for £2 10s., in favour of John Campbell, which
I placed in a letter and posted myself at Lichfield,
from which time I have heard no more from the
association.

Mr. Edward Spencer said—l am a clerk in the
Money-order office, St. Martin's-le-Grand. I know
the female prisoner, and the prisoner Reed, by their
coming very frequently to the office to get orders
cashed in the name of " John Campbell." On Mon-
day, Jan. 31, I received eight half-crowns from In-
spector Whicher, and about half-past three the
same afternoon the female prisoner came to the
office and presented two money-orders, one for
Ll 6s. 3d. from Leeds, and the other from
Sligo for Ll 10s. I paid her £2 16s. 3d.,
amongst which was the money I had received
from Inspector Whicher. I asked her if she could
write her name, and she said " No." She said
her name was Ann Thompson, and that she re•
sided at 2, Wefmouth-terrace, New North-road. I
believe the letters produced were written by the
prisoner Reed, who signed his name John Camp-
bell. I produce an order drawn at Walsall, on the
18th December, 1858, in favour of John Campbell,
and which was paid by me to ono of the prisoners
on the 21st of December last.

Mr. John W. Margells said—l am a clerk in the
Money-order Office, St. Martin's-le-Gran& I pro-
duce an order drawn at Lichfield, on the 21st
Dec., 1858. in favour of John Campbell. I cashed
it on the 22th December, and handed one of the
prisoners the money.
Mr. Alfred Eustace said—l am a clerk in the
Money-order Office. I know the female prisoner.
She has frequently been at the office lately, and
cashed money-orders from different. parts of the
country made payable to "John Campbell." I paid
her £1 too much in December last, on an order she
then produced, signed " John Campbell." A day or
two afterwards the prisoner Reed, whom I knew
previously by his cashing orders in the name of
"John Campbell," came to the office, and I told him
that the female prisoner had received £1 too much.
The next day he came and brought me a sovereign.
He said the female prisoner was his housekeeper,
and had been in his family for the last 15 years.
He also distinctly told me that his name was " John
Campbell," and that the post-office orders were for
him. I also know the prisoner Thompson. He'
came one day to the Post:office and produced an

order signed " John Campbell," but as the name
was spelt wrongly, I asked him if his name was
John Campbell. He replied in the negative, and
said his name was M'Donald. I have seen him at
the Post•office on many occasions.
Mr. George Westbury said—l am in the employ
of Mr. Toleman, paper-stainer, of 170, Goswell
road. In the month of June or uly last my master
had a house to let at No. 2, Weymouth-terrace, of
which he is the landlord. About that time the
female prisoner called on my master in company
with a man whom she called her husband, and who
gave the name of Munday. Mr. Toleman was not at
home, and they both called again next day, when
they saw my master in my presence, gave refer-
ences, and took the house ; and during the conver-
sation she called the man her husband. About ten
days after Michaelmas I called at 2, Weymouth-
terrace, and there saw the female prisoner. I asked
her for the rent. She said she had only got £3,
and that her husband would call and pay it the
next day. I then put a broker in, and the money
was paid the same day.
Henry Hudson said—l am a letter-carrier, and
deliver at Weymouth-terrace, New North-road, and
used to deliver before Christmas a great many
letters at No. 2. A few days before the occupants
left, the female prisoner told me they were going
away, and requested me to forward all letters com-
ing to No. 2 directed to John Campbell, to No. 22,
Tavistoek-place, and I told her she must write to
the district post.office.
Mr. Tarrant said he was inspector at the district
post-office, and proved that a letter was received at
the district post-office, Islington, requesting that
all letters coming there directed to John Campbell,
No. 2, Weymouth-terrace, were to be re-directed
and sent to No. 22, Tavistock-place, Tavistock-
square.
. _

Inspector Whicher said that was the case for the
present, and asked for a remand. There were
several persons in the country, who would come
forward if their expenses were guaranteed. The
case from Leeds was a very clear one, but he could
not guarantee the expenses.
Mr. Corrie remanded the prisoners for a week,
and said that the case from Leeds had better be
brought forward. He should refuse bail.
The prisoners were then removed.

LAMBETH.—POT-STEALING:—William Harris
and Richard Payne, two urchins, the former 12 and
the latter 10 years of age, were placed in the felons'
dock on a charge of stealing a pint pot, the pro-
perty of Mr. Robert Bamfield Williams, proprietor
of the Bull's Head Tavern, Broad-street, Lambeth.
Mr. Williams deposed that on the preceding even-
ing, between the hours of six and seven o'clock,
the prisoner Richard Payne was brought to his
house by a police constable, with a broken up. pint
pot in his possession, and on examining the injured
measure, he discovered it, both by the name and
address, to be his.

Mr. Norton—Do you know anything about the
prisoners, Mr. Williams ?

- Mr. Williams—Yes; I know Payne's father"and
mother as hard-working people in my neighbour-
hood, and the friends of the other lad, I under-
stand, also live in the neighbourhood.
George Goddard, 41 L, deposed that while on
duty in the Lambeth-walk on the evening before,
he saw the prisoners together, and, in crossing the
street, one of them dropped the pint pot, smashed
up as it was, but picked it up immediately. He, in
consequence, followed them, and saw them go into
the shop of a marine-store dealer, where they offered_
it in sale for 41-d. The shopkeeper, however, re-
fused to purchase it, and. was about detaining the
prisoners, when he (witness) entered the shop and
took them into custody. The prisoners at once
told him they. were equally guilty. Payne said
he took the pint pot out of the dust-yard, and that
Harris smashed it up against the wall.
The prisoners admitted that this was all true, and
said it was their first offence.
Mr. Norton observed he did not wish to send
boys of their age to associate with practised thieves.
Mr. Williams said that, for his part, it was by
no means his wish that the lads should be sent to
prismi. The offence of pot stealing was one by
which the licensed victuallers suffered severely, and
in the hope that the punishment of being confined
all night would have the effect of preventing a
repetition of their crime, he should now leave the
matter in his worship's hands.

Mr. Norton inquired if the parents of the lads
were present, and being answered in the affirma-
tive, he asked if they had any objection to their
boys being whipped. In both cases the parents
said they should prefer administering the infliction
themselves ; and having promised to give them a
mound flogging, the boys, with a proper caution for
their future conduct, were given up to their parents.