The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-25 00:00:00

nition or a reprimand would have answered the
justice of the case. We dare say that their Wor-
ships, the wise corporators of Bristol, will run
small risk of being cashiered for their offences.
We wish, and all friends of the . Government
wish, that they would take more pains to refute
1 the opinion promulgated by their enemies, that
they are strong against the weak, and weak against
the strong.— Times.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 24.

TODD V. THE 'IVATERMEN'S COMPANY.

The plaintiff claimed to be admitted a freeman of the
Waterinen's Company, by a servitude for seven years,
under an indenture of apprenticeship to a master lighter-
man, named Coleman. The Company refused to admit
him, on the ground that he had not served his apprentice-
ship, upon which he obtained a rule in this Court for a
mandamus to compel them to admit him, and upon the
return to that rule, which denied that be was a freeman,
the present issue was directed, in order to ascertain whe-
ther the plaintiff had or had not duly served his term of
apprenticeship.
A vast number of witnesses were called to prove that
the plaintiff was duly apprenticed to Coleman, who was in
the employ of his (the plaintiff's) father, and that he had
served the whole period, navigating the craft in the Thames.
The defence was that there had not been a servitude,
and that the plaintiff's apprenticeship to his father's servant
was only to give a colour to an apparent servitude, in order
to his obtaining his freedom.
The Learned Judge, in his charge to the Jury, left them
to decide whether the plaintiff's service under his indenture
was a bona fide service. The Jury found for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 21.

SURGICAL ATTENDANCE.-YORSENALL li. BLICKIC.

In the April of last year, the present plaintiff, then a
footman in the service of Mrs. Abbott, fractured the tibia,
or both the tibia and fibula of his leg against the bars of a
gate, and was immediately sent by his mistress, for greater
convenience, Ece., to the King's Head public-house, and a
surgeon, Mr. Blicke, the present defendant, immediately
sent for to his assistance. Blicke not being then at home,
his assistant attended the patient, and did what he could ad
interim for the dislocated tibia ; and Blicke, on his re-
turn, attended in person, and seeing the leg at the
ancle considerably swollen, ordered that the patient should
be fomented with warm water during that night till
he should call on the ensuing day. The attendants did so
foment, but fomented so as to produce an ulceration, and
a prevention of an immediate setting of the fractured
bones. This and similar treatment was made the basis
of the present action by the plaintiff (who, it appears, has
now an everted foot) against the defendant, for a want of
care and skill—as it is pleaded that from the inattention
or inability displayed by the defendant in adjusting the
fractured bones, the eversion of the foot has occurred ;
and in consequence, to the plaintiff an incapacity for his
former employment as footman.
For the defendant, Serjeant Sealaxix contended that he
was beset by persons of his party in the public-house, so
as to discompose his mind, and thence retard his cure.
And as to the using of warm water, it was solely a matter
of opinion, a choice of practice; and as to using it in
this instance, Surgeon Blicke had directed the attendants
to use it so warm only as they could bear to their own
cheeks, thus affording a test of the warmth necessary;
and if such bumpkins (said the Counsel) exceeded their
orders, the defendant was not liable. Again, as to any
negligence, it was proved that the defendant had attended
during the plaintiff's stay at the public-house as often as he
was essential to promote the cure; and it was proved by his
assistant, front the books, that aperient medicines had been
given ; yet it was proved by some medical gentlemen during
the evidence, that costiveness could not retard the cure, if
it did not injure the constitutional habits of the patient.
And Mr. Titley, under whose care the plaintiff placed
himself, on the 10th of June following, found the cure
proceeding, the feet parallel to the knees, the splints pro-
perly adjusted, and the only sign of irritation was a slight
turn-faction. Dr. Titley advised the splints to be continued
on till the month of August, when no appearance of au
eversion of the foot was evidenced, and he thought it
might have arisen from a loosening of the callus subse-
quently, or from an accident ; so thought surgeons Earl,
Brodie, Lawrence, &c. But so long as he had been in-
specting the foot, no appearance of deformity was evinced.
The Jury retired about half-past seven, having heard the
case from half-past nine in the morning, and returned a
verdict for the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

Benjamin Mark and Herman Wilhelm were
charged by Mark Williams with having obtained
four dozen fur caps, under false pretences. The par-
ties were all German Jews, and from what could be
gathered from their odd sort of gibberish, it appeared
that the defendants had given an order for the caps
for ready money, and taking advantage of the prose-'
cutor's absence, Mark had persuaded the wife to let
him have them ; but under such a clumsy pretext,
that he had clearly made a swindle of it. As Wil-
helm was the partner of Mark, though not present
when he got the goods, the prosecutor had given
both into custody. Knowing, therefore, the charge
could not' be brought home to him, he made a pro-
digious cackle, and in broken English asked " For
vy he was charged vit de poles ?"
" Ask your conscience," said Mr. Hobler.
"Ax ma conscience, s'help ma Got. I vil ax
ma conscienc," said Herman, " I puy de coats in de
regular vay—den for vat you pring ame here ? De
prosecutor sure be von rogue bigger den me."—
(Laughter.)
Mr. Alderman WILsoN, however, being about to
commit Mark, the defendants consented to allow the
officer to pay 3s. 2d. out of the moneys taken from
them.
" lab, hah !" said Herman, shaking his fist at
the officer, " I shall damage you all vit my actions—
vich I pring against y.ou--for you have prove me a
rogue."
It was here intimated to the Alagistrate that the
defendants had been taken to Lambeth-street Office
last week on a similar charge, and that there were
two parties outside who had been defrauded out of
their goods in a similar way. The defendants no
sooner heard this stated, than they bolted with great
expedition out of the office.