The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-17 00:00:00

KING'S B. DAY.)

.Wiltt who
LTA S
The ATTORNEY-GDAEVNIEERSAII:c with were Mr.. rA TT
and Mr. WIGIITMAN) stated the case. It was an actil
brought to recover a sum of 8131. 175., the amount °
three bills of exchange, under the followii,-,r circumstances
The plaintiffs, Messrs. Robert and David Davies, are 0°;
len manufacturers, residing in Gloucestershire, and tbsr.
employed as their agent a person named Willian:ion,wh's,
duty it was to make sales, to draw bills on the pu:echasegre
and transmit them, when accepted, to his employers. sit
was authorized to give the usual credits of three and
months, and he bad the power of endorsing bills by Pr°„l'
ration for Messrs. Davies. He regretted to say that S;
°t
liamson very much betrayed his trust, for he sold goods
longer credits than he was authorized to give, and convert°,
the bills to his own use. The three bills in question vverv,
one for the sum of 325/. 55., accepted by Messrs. Perkil'
and Edgar, on the•lst August 1831, at eighteen months;
the second was accepted by Messrs. Rowat and Greensbiele:
tailors, of Bond-street, for 3791. 11s., on the 17th
1831, at eighteen months ; and the third was for 109/• is':
accepted by a person named Green, on the Ist Febro3,rri,
1831, at the same date. These bills were for goods 01,
and it was the duty of Williamson to have forwarded tbeil.
to the plaintiffs, instead of doing which he:carried them to tb°
defendant Willats, an accountant, then residing in the
but now abroad, who gave Williamson canh to a certr,i,
amount, deducting a debt then becoming due from 1"
liamson to Willats. This transaction illiamson altogr
ther suppressed, and Willats, after assisting Williailosre
in committing this fraud upon his employers, passed t't
bills to a person named Robinson, who obtained paynlef
, from the acceptors. It appeared that ,there was a deht?j
5551. due by Williamson to Willats, which was to be P°
in instalments of 301. per month, and which debt was
the
ranteed by the present plaintiffs. At the time two of o
bills were tendered by Williaoson to Willats, there was in
instalment of that debt due, but Willats thought fit to ae
duct four instalments, amounting to 120/., and when 6,
third bill was tendered, four other instalments were le;
ducted, amounting to a like sum. He trusted that, unuue
•
these circumstances, he would be able to satisfy the J
that the transaction between Williamson and the defend°,
was a mala fide one, that Willats must have been aw;
that they were merely held by Williamson in trust for
er
employers, and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to ree°/
the
Wit aount from the defendant. the,
m Wit
nesses were called to prove the facts as stated in
address of the Learned Counsel.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD (with whom was Mr. -itl)r
for the defendant, submitted that there was no case j,
,
the defendant to answer. It must be proved that the
liamson had misapplied the proceeds of these bills
plaintiff had not done so. But even admitting, for
net
sake of argument, that this had been proved, it would er
in any way affect the defendant, unless it had been furit,l!l,
shewn that Willats knew of the misappropriation by '
liamson, which had not been proved.
Mr. PLATT was heard in reply. OO
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE was of opinion that there W 1
proof of guilty knowledge on the part of the defendant, °

iherefore-theplaintiff Must be called.
The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL cotyytT.

(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT. 1811#
Jane Gordon was indicted for cutting and stabbing

Liam Pettit with intent to maim and disable him.

Mr. CLARKSON appeared for the defence. 111
The prosecutor stated that the prisoner had lived votit
him about five years. On the 27th -of November he sety
her to Bowling-lane, Westminster, with a par of shoes. rt,
her return she was intoxicated andabused him. He recu°
strated with her, upon which she took up the poker ,
struck him with it on the left arm. He tried to wrest it fro;
her but was prevented by a fellow lodger, who took bin' i1)0
his room. Subsequently, he returned to his own apart Met,
and she said something which so provoked him that he
,gej
tempted to strike her, but did not, He, however, peslJ);
her away. He then went to work at his bench and the Pri,
soner came behind and plunged a knife into his right
The knife was taken from her, but she got another, wilic
however, she was prevented from using.
In his cross•examination the prosecutor admitted that bo
had often beaten the prisoner, and that he had promised
marry her, but had not done so. He had returned fr°
transportation about six years. Je
George Delatouche, a lodger in the same house, 1112,i,
some statements in corroboration of the prosecutors e.
dente.

to cust4i

A police constable who took the prisoner in.. 110
produced the 'knife, which, at the time it was given to
by the last witness was a little bloody. to
Cross-examined—The prisoner appeared very anxiouser
render the prosecutor every assistance, and might have
taped if she wished, having been turned into the street, Ali
refused admittance.
The prisoner in her defence said the prosecutor
beating her, when she snatched up the knife in relf-defelliced
but was not aware till after the scuffle that she had wouou
him, and for which she was very sorry. tye
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE summed up, explainint, ' siot
law of the case, and the Jury returned a verdict of
Guilty.

ji tity °f