The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 5, 1866.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day).

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings in Error, before Lord Chief Justice Erle, the
Lord Chief Baron, Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Paget,
and Justices Byles and Smith).
THE QUEEN V. CHARLOTTE IVINSOR.

Mr. Falkard, Q.C., resumed his arguments this morn-
ing on behalf of the prisoner. He said he did not propose
to go into various cases in which defective verdicts bad
formed the subject of consideration of courts of appeal,
but which did not apply to the present case. In this case
the indictment was perfectly good, and a verdict might
have been given upon it, and the sole contention on
behalf of the prisoner had reference to the fact of her being
tried twice on the same indictment. He could find no case
in " Coke" that applied to the present, but he called their
lordships' attention to the case of " Campbell v. Queen."
In that case Baron Parke, in his judgment, proved by
analogy that two trials could not take place. The learned
counsel cited several other cases tending to the same
inference.

The Solicitor-General and Mr. Ilannen appeared for the
Crown.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
MC SWINEY Y. M'LAUGHLIN.

This was an action to recover rent of certain premises
required by the corporation for the improvements in the

city.

Mr. Philp, on behalf of the defendant, contended that
plaintiff was not in a position to recover rent as he had
given the defendant £3 10s. to go out of the premises.
Plaintiff denied this, and said that defendant owed him
rent, but when he left the rooms plaintiff lent him £2 to
enable him to get another place.
Defendent was called and said that ho had occupied
rooms in plaintiff's house for some time time. He had
notice to quit, but he felt it rather hard upon him, and
plaintiff agreed to forgive him the rent, and make him a
present of £3 10s. if he would go out, as the corporation
wanted the premises.
Defendant's wife detailed at some length the circum-
stances under which the money had been handed over by
the plaintiff.
Plaintiff denied that he had either forgiven the amount
due for rent or had given the defendant any money to

go out.
Mr. Philip—Who pays the rent now ?
Plaintiff—That has nothing to do do with the matter.
Mr. Philp—But 1 am entitled to know.
Plaintiff —Well, the expiration pays me.

Mr. Philp then urged that in these days there was
nothing unusual in a landlord giving his tenant money to
go out, and his Honour (➢Tr. Commissioner Kerr) felt that
he ought to give evidence to rebut the defendant's evi-
dence. It was extremely unlikely that a landlord would
lend money to a tenant who already owed him money for
rent. There wero two witnesses in this case against the
plaintiff, and the verdict must be for the defendant.
Verdict for the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

REFUSAL OF OUTCASTS TO GO INTO THE WORKHOUSE.—
Three young women, named Ann Anderson, Georgina
Goodall, and Eliza Smith, were charged, before Mr. Knox,
with being found in Ifyde-park, without any visible means
of subsistence, and not giving a satisfactory account of
themselves.

John Tippett, park-constable, No. 31, said—About six
this morning I saw the three females lying against the
wall of the Magazine Barracks. I had cautioned Ander-
son repeatedly before, she having been for some time past
in the habit of sleeping under the trees of a night and on
the benches in the day-time. I took them to Mount-street
Workhouse, and the authorities offered to admit them, but
they refused to go into the house, and I then charged
them.

Mr. Knox—Why do you not go into the workhouse and
be taken care of ? You cannot be allowed to be about the
park, and you will die of starvation and disease if you do
so. Have you any means of subsistence ?

Anderson—No.
Anderson— I was a dressmaker, but, being ill, had to go
into the hospital, and having parted with my clothes, have
not had the means of getting them back again.

Mr. Knox—The end of it will be that some day you wil
be jumping into the Serpentine.
_ _

Goodall--I should not like to go into a workhouse, as I
have no wish to be passed to my parish.
Mr. Knox—l think the mildest and most humane thing
I can do for you will be to remand you for a few days,
and, after a few days' reflection perhaps you will alter your
mind.

The prisoners, who appeared very reluctant to go to a
workhouse, were then removed.

WESTMINSTER.

IMPUDENT ROBBERY FROM A SHOP DOOR.—Thomas An-
derson, a decently attired man of 32 years of age, was
charged before Mr. Arnold with stealing 32 yards of cloth,
value £2 10s.

From the evidence it appeared that the cloth was outside
the shop-door of Mr. Alfred Southon, a mercer, 5, Tach-
brook-street, Pimlico, at 0 o'cio,k on P.-Iday evening. He
was seen by a servant at a house a few doors off to take
up the roll of cloth and carry it away. She informed
William Turner, assistant to Mr. Southon, who pursued
the prisoner with an apprentice. The prisoner threw
away the cloth and ran, but was pursued by the appren-
tice calling "Stop thief." Some men caught prisoner,
and ho was given into the custody of 249 B, to whom he
acknowledged his guilt.

Prisoner said he was sorry he had stolen the cloth, but
he did it through hunger. He had been in Portsmouth
five weeks, and came up to London on Thursday. A man
took him to Whitechapel and inveigled him into a house,
where ho was robbed of his watch, money, clothes, and
everything he possessed.

Mr. Arnold asked him if he thought he was justified in
stealing this cloth because other people had robbed him of
his clothes.

Prisoner asked to be summarily dealt with, as this was
the first offence.

Ho was remanded till Wednesday for inquiries to bo
made.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.--This Day.

DEVOIsiPORT.

The members of this committee, Mr. C. Wyn, chairman,
assembled for the first time this morning.
The petitioners in this case are electors of Devonport,
and they alleged bribery, treating, and undue influence
against the sitting members, Mr. Fleming and Mr Ferrand
The petition prayed that the election might be declared
null and void, and that the return might be amended by
striking out of the sitting members and substituting of Mr
Brassey and Mr. Phinn.

Mr. H. James and Mr. Lopes were counsel for the peti-
tioners, and Mr. Karslake, Q.C., Mr. Price, Q.C., and Mr.
Cooke for the sitting members.

Mr. James, in opening the petitioners' case, gave a brief
outline of the political history of the borough for some
years and down to a short period preceding the election.
The sitting members represented the Conservative party,
and the unsuccessful candidates the Liberals. A large
number of the population of the borough were engaged in
Government works, and 400 of them supported the sitting
members at the last election. He would prove to the
satisfaction of the committee that in several instances
bribery had been resorted to as well as the
other corrupt practices alleged in the petition. On the
day of voting the men employed onathe Government works
were all allowed a half-holiday to enable them to record
their Votes. They suffered no pecuniary loss in conse-
quence, but those who supported the sitting members were
paid a half day's wages by their agents. The votes of the
men were, in fact, purchased by this description of pay-
ment; but it would appear, in evidence, they received still
more substantial remuneration. The learned counsel then
proceeded to describe the nature of the evidence he pro-
posed to produce.
Several witnesses were then examined.