The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-14 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the Lord Chief
Baron and Common Juries.)
CHAMBERLAIN V. WHITEHEAD-ASSAULT.

Mr. H. Digby Seymour was counsel for the plain-
tiff, -and Mr. Pearc<,! for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action, who is a wheelwright,
residing in Rupert-street, sought to recover from
the defendant, an architect and builder, in the same
locality, damages for an assault., The plaintiff and
the defendant were, on the night of Saturday, the
2d of April, in the White Horse public-house, when
some dispute arose . between them, and, according
to the plaintiff's case, the defendant rose from his
seat, struck him several blows, knocking him down,
and otherwise injuring him.
In cross-examination he denied that he had struck
the defendant, but admitted that the latter had
sued him in the county court for £l3, which he had
paid since this action was brought.
Some witnesses having been called in support of
the plaintiff's case,

N r. Pearce addressed the jury for the defence,
submitting that the smallest coin in the realm
would satisfy the justice of the case.
His lordship having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict for the plhintiff—
Dam.iges £lO.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
Sittings in Error—(Before Justices Wines and
Byles, and Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Watson.)

GARTON V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
In this case the declaration stated that the defen-
dants were indebted to the plaintiff for money had
and received, and on an account stated. The defen-
dants pleaded that the cause of action arose after
the passing of the statute which required 20 days'
notice before an action was brought for any matter
under the statute, 5 and 6 Wm. IV. The Court of
Queen's Bench, where the case was argued, and
where it was contended that no notice had been
given according to the act, it having been delivered
at the company's offices at Bristol, and not at Pad-
dington, had decided in favour of the defendants,
and from this judgment there was a writ of error.
Mr. Knowles, on behalf of the plaintiff, now
contended that the plea was bad, and was no answer
to the action.

Mr. Smith submitted that the plea was good, and
implied that the action had been brought under the
statute.

The Court was of opinion that the plea was bad,
on the ground that an action for money had and
received did not fall under the statute requiring the
notice.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.
(Before the Chief Commissioner.)
IN RE CHARLES HIGHMORE POTTS.
This insolvent, of the brevet rank of colonel in
the army, was opposed by Mr. Hawthorne and
Mr. Denney for two creditors ; Mr. Bicker Caarten
supported.

The insolvent had been nearly forty years in the
army, and only had captain's half-pay of £240 a
year. He had been in difficulties for some time.
Mr. Howell, one of the opposing creditors, had
advanced money ; and the other, Mr. Tooke, had
educated the insolvent's son.
. The Chief Commissioner intimated that a recom-
mendation should be sent to the Horse Guards that
£9O a year be set aside; and if not allowed h©
should give a judgment on the complaint of the
opposing creditors.
Subsequently the case was adjourned to the 25th
instant, in order to see whether the oppositions
could be settled so as to prevent the recommenda-
tion being sent to the Horse Guards.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL :COURT.—May 13,

OLD COURT.
THE TRIAL OF THE GANG OF FORGERS.
Henry. Smith, a detective sergeant of the metro-
politan-police, deposed that on the 21st of March
he was sent for to Messrs. Drummonds the bankers,
and he found the prisoner Bramwell there, and he
was informed that he had uttered a forged cheque;
the prisoner produced a letter which he said he had
receiVed from a person n lined Wilscn, in which he
directed him to present the cheque; he was allowed
to depart, and witness followed him to an empty
house in Queen-street, Soho, and he remained there
all day, but no Mr. Wilson came. He smoked a
pipe part of the time. A woman named Fairburn
and Bateman also came and looked over the house,
and he gave the latter a light to his cigar from his
pipe. The woman went away first, and Bateman
left a few minutes afterwards.
Cross examined—Bramwell was not taken into
custody that day, but hoo kept a pretty sharp look
out upon him during the time he remained with
him.
Cross-examined—He believed that the house
Bramwell was taking care of belonged to his uncle,
and that his relations were respectable people living
in the neighbourhood. lie had not made any
inquiries with a view to ascertain whether a deposit
of £2O really was required before the house would
be let.
Henry Webb, a sergeant of the detective police
force of the city of London, deposed that in November
of last year he was employed in watching the move-
ments of the prisoner Wagner, the witness Chandler,
and the man Bateman, whose name had been men-
tioned during these proceedings. Bateman and
Chandler both lived at Battersea,a short distance from
each other, and they seemed to be on very friendly
terms, and generally went from their homes together
in the morning towards the steam-boat pier, but when
they got close to the pier they used to separate, and
one travelled to London from one of the piers and
the other from another, and the effect of this pro-
ceeding was that one of them would arrive a quar-
ter of an hour before the other. He knew that
Wagner lived. at No. 10, York-buildings, Adelphi.
He took Chandler into custody at Battersea on the
21st of February, and he was going in the direction
of Bateman's house when he apprehended him.
After he had been taken witness searched his house,
and then went to the residence of Bateman, who
informed him that Chandler was his clerk. Bate-
man was not taken into custody upon this occasion.
He then proceeded to the house in York-buildings,
but Wagner was not there, and he never again
made his appearance at this house, and he did not
see him again until his apprehension in Sussex-
street, on the 2Gth of March. While he was at the
house in York-buildings, the prisoner Humphreys
came in and asked for Wagner and said that he
wished to see him about some money transactions.
He subsequently observed the slope pail and the
rolling-pin, and having been himself brought up to
the tin trade, he could say that it was very unusual
for a pail of the description that had been produced
to have a false bottom such as this one had.

. -Mrs. Skelton, the landlady. of the house in John-
. street, Fitzroy-square, proved that the man Kerp,
who had been alluded to in the evidence of
Chandler, lodged in-her house, and that he was
frequently visited .by Chandler,. Bateman, and
Wagner, and on some occasions when they were in
his'room, the door of the room was locked. She
also stated that Kerp generally was occupied in
writing, and that he had left since these proceed-
ings, and she did not know where he was gone to.
Cross-examined—Kerp was an old man—she
should say nearly 80 years of age. When he was
at her house he appeared to be feeble and stooped,
but she believed that when he was younger he was
a tall, upright man.
The witness Chandler was then re-called by Mr.
Bodkin, and in answer to the questions put to him,
he said that when a difficulty arose about the
cheques that were to be Made use of not having on
them . the Government stamp, Humphreys under-
took to make or to procure a die for the_purpose of
fabricating the stamp. After some time, finding
that he did not bring it, Wagner became diSSatisfied
at the delay, and said he would not wait any longer
for it; and lie, Chandler, Bateman, and Wagner,
then set about to make one, and when they com-
pleted it the die was shown to Humphreys, but he
had no hand in making it: He was however, aware
what the die was to be used for.
In answer to a question put by Mr: Justice
Crowder, the witness said that they first made a
die- of plaster of Paris, but this did not answer the
intended purpose, and they then 'made one of
metal, with which the impressions were made upon
the cheques.
The witness WTebb was then again examined, and
he stated that when he and the other officer appre-
hended Humphreys he had something in his hand
which he appeared desirous to get rid of, and madehl.m
some resistance, but they seized and t
it was no use, and he then gave up whatold
he had in
his hand, which turned out to be a die of the same
description as that which had been mentioned by

the witness Chandler. .
Mr. Bodkin said that this was the case for the
prosecution.
The learned counsel for the prisoners then
severally addressed the jury on behalf of their re-
spective clients, but as nearly the whole of them
urged the same topics upon the attention of the
jury, it will be unnecessary to say moreon w
thaner that
the main points principally relied up
the evidence given by the witnesses Chandleer and
Watkins were unworthy of credit, and that they
had taken advantage of their knowledge of the fact
that the prisoners were occasionally in each other's
company, to trump up the romanti •
c L ,
4oiy they had

,1,0 ;14 DX.