The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-27 00:00:00

THE WATERLOO BRIbGE MYSTERY.

rLAI S T OW, WEDNESDAY.
This morning, upon making enquiries it was ascertained
,iat Bridget Callaghan, known as " Old Biddy," was very
much better. Upon being asked if she was aware of the
value of the statements she had made; 'she replied, " Yes,"
and repeated them, adding a description of the carpet bag,
and the manner in which each portion of the discovered
body was wrapped up and in What kind of paper. To-
morrow a full and perfect statement is expected, provided
the stile of the old woman permits the-mental exertion.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

ROLLS COURT.
:Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)

JUDGMENT.—WILDM AN V. LADE.
Plaintiff, by his solicitors, in Canterbury, sold by private
contract his estate, of Greaves, for £5,400, subject to land
tax.
• Defendant signed the contract and 'paid a deposit of £540.
He now repudiates the contract and claims abatement on the
ground that he was only informed thif the land tax was £6'.;
whereas it turned out that the land.:tax was £l3, being a
land-tax at the rate of 2s. Bd. per poUtid on the value of the
estate.
Plaintiff filed his bill for specific performance of the con-
tract, arid alleged that his estate was sold by his solicitors,
Messrs. Hurley and Calloway, under the express condition
that the estate was subject to land tax ; and that Mr. Cal-
loway expressly informed him that he did not know the
amount before the contract was signed.
• The. Master of the Rolls was satisfied, upon looking at
the evidence produced, that the defendant Was informed that
.the estate in question was sold •to him subject to payment
of the land tax, and that the plaintiffs agents gave him all
the information respecting the land tax that they had
.themselves. His Honour decreed: specific- performance
against the defendant; with costs.

SECONDARIES COURT.
(Before Mi. Potter.)
INMAN V. GRIFFIN.

This was an action to recover the sum of £l2 10s. com-
mission, on obtaining a farm for defendant, in the ordinary
way of business. •
Mr. Clark, of Bedford-row,' for the plaintiff, stated that
the matter was of great iMpoithnce to. his client, and was as
follows —Mr. Inman is a' farm and estate agent, and •
advertises very largely. Some time• ago defendant applied
to him for a farm of about 300 acres. Mr. Inman wrote to
defendant enclosing his terms, 5 per cent. upon the rental,
and enclosing also a list of farms, amongst which was one
known as Hollybush Farm.. Upon receiving this list, •
defendant had, entirely ignoring the plaintiff, personally
negotiated with the owner of thefarm; subsequently taking it.
But upon the terms of the plaintiff this was guarded against,.
and one of the clauses was, that any•farm taken upon in-
formation received from plaintiff would be chargeable in
reference to the taker in the same rates of commission. .
Plaintiff was called, and stated that defendant called upon
him, and upon paying the correspondence• fee, one guinea,
asked if the landlord of the farm would not pay half the.
commission, and plaintiff said no. • -Ile was the tenant's
agent.
Cross-examined—Plaintiff was not authorised by the
owner of the farm to advertise it Ai To -be Let." It was
customary to conduct business in this way.
Mr. Field, for the defendant, contended that the fee paid
by defendant was in fact all he was •to pay. It had been
given in evidence that it was • usual to charge one guinea
for correspondence fee, i.e. letters, &c., &c., but in reality
that sum was quite sufficient payment for the information
given by plaintiff.
Defendant was called, and said that he told plaintiff the
Commission. was very extravagant, and he did not agree to.
pay it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clark—Plaintiff told me he was
not employed by the owner of the farm. I might have.
read the particulars contained in the plaintiff's terms.
Mr. Marsh, the agricultural agent, was called, and his.
evidence was in favour of neither party, in fact, he declared
he never knew such a case. • • • . .
Mr. Field then submitted there was no contract to find for.
defendant, and Mr. Clark said it was really an undefended

• • •
action.
The learned Secondary stopped Mr. Clark, and told the.
jury it was so. •
The jury deliberated for a short time, and the learned.
Secondary again explained the law. The jury intimated
that they would be glad to hear Mr. Clark, who then ad-.
dressed them, and they -ultimately found for the plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

OBTAINING GOODS BY • FRAUD, AND RECEIVING.—
Patrick Savage, a -tailor, was charged with obtaining, by
fraudulent pretences, 107} yards. of silk serge, valued at
£lB, the property of Messrs. Miley and Co., drapers, &c.,of 42, Warwick .street; and Sivanovital Bennett and Eve
Bennett, Polish Jews,', of 11, West-street, Golden-square,
trimming sellers, were charged with being unlawfully pos-
sessed of the same. • •
Mr. Edwd. Seria, of Great Marlborough-street, appeared
for the priSoners.
Wm. Pickman, in the employ of the prosecutors, said the
prisoner Savage came on Monday and asked for a piece of
silk serge of above 100 yards in length, stating that it was
for Mr. Geogtegar' of Jerrnyn-street, and, knowing the pri-
soner had been in)iis employ, he let him have a piece of
108 yards, of the value of £4B.
Sergeant Glass, 3 C, said.he took Savage into custody in
Warwick street on the previous evening, and told him the
charge. He said (speaking to Mr.Miley) "I hope you will
settle this without giving me into .the custody of the police,
as I can tell you where I sold it.t'• lie (Glass) then took
him to the station, where he told him he had sold it in
West-street, to a man named Bennett, for £lO. He gaye
his address in Carnaby-street, but on going there found he
had left that morning. From what Savage told him he
went to West-street, to the shop .of Bennett, and asked, if
he had purchased any silk of a man, which he denied. He
told him a man was locked up, charged with obtaining some
by fraud. Bennett then spoke to a female in a language
he did not understand, and ho (Sergeant Glass) heard the
private door shut, and on :going out saw the female with a
parcel running away, and, just as he came up to her, he saw
her place the parcel in a doorway.. He afterwards admitted
giving £lO for it, but said he had, not:entered it, as he kept
no books. .
Mr. Lewis addressed the magistrate (Mr. Beadon)' at
some length, and in a very, able manner, on behalf of the
Donnetts, and contended that the Bennetts had paid a fair
price for the goods.
Remanded. .

tIIAMAS
AN INVETERATE POT STEAI,ER.—Thomas Spooner, an
old man well known to the, police as a person sneaking about
inns and public-houses for. some time past, and whose visits
have been generally followed by the loss of some article,
was charged with stealing a pint Pot from the Fir Tree pub-
lic-house in Church-lane, Whitechapel.
Abraham Stone, servant to Richard Dear, the land-
lord of the Fir Tree, stated that the prisoner came to the
house yesterday afternoon between three and four o'cloCk,
and called for a pint of beer, which he drank and left. Soon
afterwards he missed a pint pewter pot, and suspecting the
prisoner, went after him, and overtook him about 100 yards
from the house. Ayoung'rhan took the prisoner's hat off; and
a, pint pot fell from it on to thb' ground. He said to the
prisoner, " You -have taken that pot from our house," to
which ho made no reply. ' The pot in question was not the
one in which the prisoner's beer was served, but was on-the
table beside him.
The prisoner, in defenbe, said he was very drunk, and
did not know what he was abut when ho took the pot.
Stone said the prisoner" was ddrtainly the worse for liquor,
and Gascoigne, a pclice-constable, 98 H, said the prisoner
told him he did not know he had the- pet in his hat when
the hat was pulled off hiti head.
Roche, the gaoler of 'the court, said the prisoner had
passed through his hands more than once before, but he
could not say he was ever contteted of felony.
The prisoner ,then pldaded guilty, and was sentenced to
three months' imprisonitent and hard labour. • •
SUSPICIOUS POSSESSION Or •PROPEETY.—Henry Smith,
a Well-known thief,. belonging to the Spitalfields gang,
against whom there is more than one conviction reoorded
for felony, was- brought before Mr. Selfe, charged with
being in unlawful possession of 14 cloth caps, which had
been stolen or unlawfully procured.
Thomas Heath, a police-constable, No. 171 K, stated
that he passed the pyisoner on Stepney-green yesterday
afternoon, and observing he was very bulky, he stopped
him and asked him what he had got about him, to which
he replied "Nothing." • He detained the prisoner, who
said, " This is what you want," and took five caps from
under his arm. On searching the prisoner he discovered
nine more caps in his trousers: Tickets were attached to
them, and he believed they had been stolen from a shop.
The prisoner said he bought the caps of a dealer, but
where he lived or his name he-could not tell.
Mr. Selfe remanded the prisoner for a week.