The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-30 00:00:00

THE KING V. GELLEff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

PEEL V. OWENS.

In this case plaintiff' had agreed to give defendant a re-
lease of his right as Lord of the Manor to four cottages, of
which defendant held possession, in Herefordshire, for 90/.,
which defendant had refused subsequently to pay, and
pleaded that plaintiff had no title. The replication was,
that plaintiff had the title of fee simple. A verdict was had
for plaintiff. Mr. Maule had obtained on a former day a
rule Nisi, calling on plaintiff to show cause why there
should be a nonsuit.
Mr. Serjeant TALFOURD argued in support of the ver-
dict, on the ground that plaintiff would be entitled to one,
if an action of ejectment had been brought.
Mr. MAULE maintained that. in law and justice there
should have been a verdict for the defendant. The terms
of the grant to plaintiff were nothing more than the general
words ordinarily inserted in the conveyance of a manor from
the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who had no com-
mon law power to represent the Crown, and there was
proof that a person held possession of the lands encroached
upon more than twenty years before, who did not acknow-
ledge the seisin of the Crown. The King could only act
through responsible officers, and his prerogative was always
exercised with mel‘s_,.ration. He would therefore have the
power to do wrong if he could confer it upon a subject who
would exercise it for his individual interest without any mi-
tigating power, which the Court of Exchequer possessed to
mitigate judgments after had by the King against the subject.
The Court said that the case involved most important
points, and that it would be necessary to consider well the
authorities before it pronounced its opinion.
Three other cases in which the same person is plaintiff
depend upon the decision of this.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

On Monday evening last 3fr. William Chalman and Mr.
Henry Frost, working jewellers in Denmark-street, St.
Giles's, in a very extensive way of business, were brought
before THOMAS HALLS, Esq., the sitting Magistrate, in the
custody of J. J. Smith and Ledbitter, the principal officers,
on a warrant granted under the statute of the 13th Geo.
111., cap. 69, in which the defendants were charged with
having feloniously transferred the Hall mark of the Gold-
smith's Company from a ring to a gold snuff-box, with intent
to defraud the said Company and his Majesty the King.
The defendants have been long known in the respectable
trade to which they belong, and the circumstance of their
arrest upon such a charge excited great interest.
Mr. Lane, the Solicitor to the Goldsmiths' Company,
attended for the prosecution ; and Mr. Flower, of the firm
of Alderman Harmer, Flower, and Co., of Hatton-garden,
appeared for the defendants.
Mr. Lane had to prefer a complaint against the defen-
dants under the statute above mentioned, which forbade the
transfer of the Hall-stamp from one piece of plate to an-
other under the penalty of seven years' transportation.
Mr. Josiah Sharp, the Deputy-warden of the Goldsmiths'
Company, was employed in the Assay Office. On Friday,
the 23d, the gold box now produced was brought to him
by Mr. Poulton, whom he knew to be in the service of
Messrs. Storr and Mortimer, of New Bond-street, jewellers
and goldsmiths, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
Hall-mark was the legal and proper one. He examined
the box, and found that the mark was not such as is used
for boxes, but the same that is used for rings. The mark
must have been extracted from a ring, and placed or in-
serted in the box.
Mr. Charles Morris Taylor, clerk to Messrs. Storr and
Mortimer, of Bond. street, deposed that some time ago an
enamel painting was sent to him by a gentleman, which was
to be fixed in a gold box, to be manufactured according to
a given pattern. Witness made a sketch of the pattern
and the box, desiring that it might be made according to
the drawing. A month ago he saw a box with the same
enamel fixe in the top of it. It was sealed up and directed
to witness. The pattern was not quite according to the
order given by witness, and he took out the enamel. There
was inclosed in the package containiag the box a bill of
parcels in the names of the defendants. On looking at the
Hall-mark, he found that the initials were not those of the
persons to whom he gave the order for the box. He saw
a mark put upon the rim inside the lid, which could easily
be taken off or soldered on. This aroused his suspicion,
and he therefore directed Mr. Poulton to take it to the
Hall, to make inquiries upon the subject.
Mr. Lane said this was all the evidence he had then to
produce, but he trusted there was sufficient to induce the
Magistrate to remand the persons accused until further in-
quiry could take place.
Mr. HALLS, although not perhaps strictly justified in
taking bail, sitting alone (Sir Robert Peel's Act requiring
two 'Magistrates to exercise that power), would under the
circumstances take sureties, each defendant in 1001., and
two respectable persons in 501. each, for their appearance
'on a future occasion.
Mr. Robins and Mr. Clare, a gentleman of respectability,
became bail immediately, and yesterday afternoon the case
was again called on. Mr. Adolphus attended with Mr.
Flower for the defendants, both of whom were accompanied
by numerous friends.
Mr. Taylor and Mr. Poulton repeated their former evi-
dence, with some additions, entirely unimportant.
Mr. Sharp, in addition to his former statement, had exa-
mined the books of the Goldsmiths' Company, in which
entries were made of all the goldworkers. The books
were kept for the purpose of making entries of all gold ar-
ticles brought to be stamped. There was a certain stamp
for gold boxes, and another for rings. There was no gold
box ever sent by either of the defendants to be stamped.
Their names were not entered as a firm until the 19th inst.
The name of Henry Frost appeared alone as a goldworker,
entered on the Ilth of February, 1829.
A lengthened discussion then took place, Mr. ADOLPHUS
contending that no case had been made out against his
clients, Mr. Chalman in particular.
Mr. HALLS thought with Mr. Adolphus that no case
had been made out at present which would warrant a com-
mittal. The facts were certainly strong prima facie, but
still they were not sufficiently so. He should discharge
the defendants simply because the evidence failed to esta-
blish the case.—The defendants were then discharged.

In this ease Mr. Smirke, on a former day, applied to the
court for a idle; calling upon an attorney named Warren
to answer the matters contained in certain affidatits, and in
default of doing so, td shew cause why he should not be
struck og the rolls. The affidavits alleged that he (War-
ren), after bringing certain penal actions in the name t 4 his
clerk; William Henty &filth, had offered to compound the
same (the particulars of tne Cage LiPtaiarad
.in The
Sun of Wednesday last) when the Learned Judge said
!zation of
he would take time to consider whether the app:
the Learned Counsel ought to be granted. Yesterday, the
Learned Judge, observing Mr. Smirke in Court, addressed
him with reference to the above case, and said, " I do not
think I have the power to grant the rule you moved for.
The party against whom you applied is not charged in your
affidatits With having extorted or attempted to extort any
money by means of any false pretences, or under a threat
of bringing any action, as in the case you cited in support
of your application. In that case, there had not been any
action brought, but there was a threat to bring certain ac-
tions if a certain demand was not complied with. Here
actions have actually been commenced, and I do not see
that this Court has any authority to order an attorney to
be struck off the rolls merely because he brings actions in
the name of an informer.
Mr. SMIRKE (interrupting his Lordship)—All the ac-
tions, my Lord, were followed by an offer to compound
them. •
Mr. Justice PATTE3ON—Had any proposition of the
kind been made antecedent to bringing the #ctions, then the

Court could have interfered, but, as the matter now stands, mitted him to the House of Correction and hard . labour
the rule you applied for cannot be granted.—Rule refused. for a month, and order the spaniel to be kept fo r air
We reference to the above case, we understand that an owner.
application will be made to Parliament, to pass a Bill of
Indemnity, to protect the defendant from liability to the
payment of the penalties sought to be recovered. Similar
actions have been brought against other local papers, as
well as against some' of the London journals, and the
amount of the penalties sought to be recovered is enormous.

MARYLEBONE.
Yesterday Mr. John Apsley Sydney, a solicitor, residiutg
at No. 53, Beaumont-street, High-street, Marylebone,
tended at this Office before the sitting Magistrates, Messrs.-

HOSKINS and SIIUTT, at the instance of the firemen con-
nected with the engine establishment in ,Marylebone-lane,
in order to show cause why he should not pay them the
reward allowed by Act of Parliament, inasmuch as they
had promptly hastened to the house of the above-named-
gentleman on the Tab inst., with their engines, for the
purpose of rendering assistance at a time when the chimney
was on fire.
Mr. HosluNs to Mr. Sidney—Do you deny, Sir, that
your chimney was on fire ? Mr. Sidney—Why, Sir, I have
some witnesses here who-
- Mr. HOSKINS—Let all the witnesses retire except tYe
firemen's first one. As the fire is disputed the evidence 'in
proof of it must be heard.
On the part of the claimants two boys were separately.
examined, both of whom stated that on the afternoon of the
day alluded to they distinctly saw a body of flame and.
smoke issue from the top of a chimney belonging to Mr.
Sidney's premises ; in consequence of which they directly'
ran to the engine-house and gave information thereof.
Mr. HosKINS (to Mr. Sidney)—Well, Sir, I think you
cri't get over this ; but if you think proper your witness
shall be heard.
Mr. Sidney then called a young woman, who stated that
she resided opposite to that gentleman's house, and that
there was no chimney on fire when the men with their en-

glues arrived.
Mr. HOSKINS (to Mr. Sidney)—That may be, Sir, but
it has been clearly proved that the boys saw the chimney in
a blaze, and therefore those who attended with the engines
are entitled to the rewards.

Mr. Sidney here contended that, admitting the chimney
to have been on fire, the men could not claim under the
Act of Parliament unless they came up with their engines
before the said fire was quenched, which was not the case.
Mr. HosKINs and Mr. SHUTT said they were of a dif-
ferent opinion ; the firemen had, for any thing that had
been shown to the contrary, used all due diligence in re-
pairing to the spot, and were undoubtedly entitled to the
reward under the Act.
_

Mr. Sidney was then adjudged to pay the following mi-
tigated rewards, viz., iss. for the first engine, 10s. for the
second, and 6s. for the third. Mr. HOSKINg at the same
time teling him that he was at liberty to appeal against the
decision if he thought proper to do so.
Mr. Sidney then left the office.