The Sun.
London, England, 1832-12-18 00:00:00

VICE•CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY,

The VICE-CHANCELLOR sat to-day, at 10 o'clock, but
in consequence of being prevented, by the absence of Counsel,
who were engaged in the Lord Chancellor's Court, from making
any progress with the causes in his paper, he rose in less thus
10 minutes after he had taken his seat.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

LAZARUS v. DEWDNEY.

Mr. WILLIAMS stated the case to the Jury. It was an

action brought by the plaintiff, Mordecai Lasarus, a glass-mer.

chant, as holder of a bill of exchange for 221.95. 6d., drawn by
a person named Rowbotham, and accepted by the defendant„
a student at law. The defence was that the bill was a forgery.
It appeared from the evidence that the defendant, who was a
young man of respectability, studying for the bar, had been
in the habit of frequenting the " Finish," a house of some
notoriety in James's-street, Covent-garden, and kept by Row-
botham, with whom he contracted a debt of 16.. or 171.; that
on the morning of the day on which the bill was dated, between
seven and eight o'clock, the defendant, after having been at the
" Finish," went to the King's Head in the same neighbourhood,
and accepted the bill there, Rowbotham giving him thebalance
There were present Rowbotham, Mr. Watkins (landlord of the
King's Head), Nicholson (Rowbotham's waiter), and a gentle.
man named Boyd. The latter was not called as a witness.

The witnesses underwent a strict cross-examination, but
their testimony, as to the acceptance and the consideration
given for the bill, was not in the least shaken. Rowbotham, it
appeared, had been a bankrupt, and had got his certificate; he
had not paid any dividend, nor had he given up his house. He
paid the bill in question to a person named Genese, who was
one of his assignees. Mr. Watkins was his other assignee.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in addressing the Jury for
the defendant, said he felt considerable anxiety on account of
his client, who was a young gentleman studying for the same
profession to which he had the honour to belong, and wtio, if
he was the person to associate with Rowbothato, and to
endeavour to escape from the payment of a just debt,
would be greatly disgraced ; but he appealed to the
Jury to rescue him from a most infamous conspiracy.
The bill was supposed to be drawn by Rowbotham,
who kept a house that was notoriously infamous, and who had
been a bankrupt, obtained what was called a whitewashing
commission--(Laughter)--and had not paid his creditors a
shilling in the pound. He would prove by witnesses that the
acceptance was not at all like the writing of the defendant,
and that, in fact it was both signed and spelt in a very differen
way from that in which the defendant signed and spelt hit
name. The defendant sjztietl his name W. Jameson Dewdney,
whereas the acceptance to the bill was W. J. Deudney 3, he
always signed his second Christian name at length, and his
surname was spelt with a ze, and not as in the bl,ll, with a u.:
Mr. Charles Wheatcroft, clerk to 11,4, Wingfield, the bar.
rister, had known the defendant four or five years, and had fre.
quent opportunities of seeing him sign his name. He clkci not
believe the acceptance to be the defendant's, and he pointed out
the variance as detailed by the SolicitorAeneral.
Cross-examined by Sir J. SCARLETT,—Witness was clerk
to a debating society, of which tlie defendant was secretary.
The society consisted cf young men studying for the bar, of
members of the bar, and Members of Parliamen,t.—(Laughter.)
A book belonging to Rowbotham was put into witness's hand,
with defendant's name and residence (Joy's hotel) in it, and on
being questioned, he said he did not believe that to be the defen-
dant's hand writing. He never saw the bill, of:exchange before
he came into Court to-day.
Samuel Warren, Esq,, a special pleader, had known the de.
fend4nt some years, and on being shown the bill, he said he
did not believe it to be the acceptance of the defendant, and
he pointed out the variations. He was of the same opinion
with regard to the signature in Rowhotham's book,
Cross-examined—Never saw the bill before to-day. He
thought he knew where the "Finish" was. In his younger
days, before he was married, he believed he went there twice,
but not more Went there with a barrister—(Laushter)—
from curiosity, having heard of the place. Qnly said there
a quarter of an hour, and left from the intolerable smell of the
place.—(Laughter.)
Sir JAMES SCARLLTT, in reply, said a great many per.
sons had been to the p6intiff's attorney, under a Judge's order,
to inspect the bill, and not one of those persons had been called
to proVe that it was not accepted by the defendant ; the only
witnesses called were two who had never seen the bill until this
morning. His Learned Friend had used some very hard words,
which were easily tpstl, but with the evidence on the one side
of persons who saw the bill accepted, and en the other of two
persons who merely gave an opinion upon that which they
never before saw, he Was sure the Jury would not
decide that Robothara committed a forgery, and that the wit-
nesses were conspirators and perjurers, It was most distinctly
proved that the defendant had run up a score at the "
and that he accepted the bill and received the few rwand"h-
ference, probably to defray the, expenses of the day. As to the
difference iu the hand-writing or in the spelling of the name, it
should be recollected that the acceptance was given at Watt or

' ht o'clock In the morning, and the difforeneitaight be ac
'anted for by the quantity of liquor which the defendant
might have taken.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in charging the Jury, said
the case was a most important one, an.' required their serious
attention.

The Juty, after a few minutes' consultation, found a verdiet
for the plaintiff, for the amount of the bill and interest.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-(THIS DAY.)

ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.-
LIOGBRS V. POLFREMAN.

This case was stated to the Jury by Mr. Humphrey. lie
said the plaintiff was a very respectable man in business as a
hosier; the defendant was the keeper of the Hand-in-Hand
public house in Holborn. A sister-in.law of the defendant's
had, for a long time, been living in his house, but not latterly ;
being uncomfortable, she determined to leave, and go to live
with another sister. The plaintiff; who had long been a friend
of the family, went, on the 24th of October, to help the young
lady to remove. Having called a coach, he was in the act nt'
receiving some boxes to put in it, when the defendant run out
of the house, caught one of the boxes, and tore it into piece-,
he then took hold of the plaintiff—pulled him out of the
coach—and struck him severely on the face. He then called
a policeman and gave the plaintiff in charge for an assault,
which the policeman refused to take, as he had not seen it.
The defendant then said, " Very well, then I will charge hint
with felony; he is a thief and a swindling scoundrel." The police-
man then took both the plaintiff and Miss Green to the station-
house in Covent.garden, and afterwards before a Magistrate
at Bow-street, where the case was heard and instantly di.rnissed.
The Learned Gentleman proved his statements by the evi-
dence of the coachman and the policemen.
Mr. ALEXANDER, for the defendant, said he was sorry
that it would be his duty to bring out some family secrets which
had much better be kept back, but which were rendered ne.
cessary, in order to clear the defendant from the almost insane
conduct which was at that time proved against him. The
facts were these :—About a twelvemonth ago Miss Green ha._t
absented herself from the defendant's house for two month,.
along with the plaintiff', with whom she kept up an impropv:
intimacy; the defendant had succeeded in getting her bacL ;
when the coach was brought up he was informed that his wife';
sister was again going away to renew that improper intimacy,
and he tried all in his power to prevent such a scandalous pro.
needing, and who, of the Jury, would not have done the same
He would prove that the plaintiff was the first assailant, and, it
he did, he hoped the Jury would have much pleasure in re-
turning a verdict for the defendan'.

A number of witnesses deposed, that when the defendant
attempted to take back some of the boxes the plaintiff' strucl.
him over the face, and that that was the first assault.
Mr. CHILTON replied, and
His LORDSHIP having summed up, the Jury returned
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 201.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS I).

FROM LLOYD'S.
DEAL, DEC. 17.—Wind W. to W.S. W., strong all day.—
Arrived his Majesty's ship Cruiser, from Portsmouth, and re-
mains with the combined squadron; Sarah, Whiteside, front
Bombay,—sailed Aug. Augusta, Mason, from New York ;
and the Lively, from Smyrna.

PORTSMOUTH, Dec. 17.—Wind W.S. W., a gale.
FALMOUTH, DEC. IR—Wind S.W. to S.S. W., fresh gale,
and squally.—Arrived the Courier, La Maitre, from Rio Ja_
neiro ; and Elizabeth, Willis, from Oporto.

DARTMOUTH, DEC. 16.—Arrived the Phoenix, Warren,
from Oporto.

MARGATE, DEC. 17.—Arrived off port the Eagle, Gib-
son, from Sierra Leone; Medora, Watson, from Smyrna
and the Alfred, from Villa Vicissa.

GREENOCK, DEC. 15.—Arrived the Lady of the Lake,
White, from St. John's, N.B.

WATERFORD, DEC. 15.—Arrived the Unity, Steadwell,
7rom Gibraltar.

CORK, DEC. 15.—Arrived the Frivell, Holliday, front
Oporto.

KINSALE, DEC. 16.—Arrived the Margaret, Welsh, from
Monte Video.

PENZANCE, DEc. 16.—Arrived the Dolphin, Johns, from
St. Petersburgh.

BRISTOL, DEC. I7.—Arrived the Favourite,
Denia.

MYSTERIOUS AND MOST DETERMINED