The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-18 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

The MASTER of the RoLLF4. sat to-day, at the Rolls' Court,
Chancery-lane.
His HONOUR, after swearing in the solicitors, proceeded to
hear the unopposed petitions, none of which were of any in-
terest,

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

ARMSTRONG V. PYKE AND ANOTHER.

Mr. TIIESSIGER (with whom was Mr. CUMMIN) stated the
case. It was an action to recover a sum of 301,, money lent
by the plaintiff to the defendant, who is an attorney, and who
brings a set-off of business done to the amount of 421. 17s. 9d.
In 1834 the plaintiff was engaged in negotiating the sale of a
school, the property of a deceased brother, and employed the
defendant, who was at the time carrying on business in Uni-
versity-street, in partnership with a Mr. Bromley, to make a
settlement with the purchaser, Mr. Hutchins. The proceeds
amounted to 1391., and when the defendant was paying the
money to the plaintiff, he asked the loan of 301., which the
plaintiff gave him, receiving Pyke's I 0 U as an acknowledg-
ment. Mr. Bromley, Pyke's partner, was not in town at the
time, but, on his return, in consequence of a conversation which
the plaintiff had with him, he was induced to press Pyke for
payment. After various attempts to see him, Mr. Hooker, the
plaintiff's attorney, obtained an interview with him at the house
of his father, Mr. Pyke, the law-agent of Chancery-lane.
Mr. Hooker said he came for payment of the plaintiff's
I 0 LT ; and the defendant said, " Anything between us
must be without prejudice." Hooker would not assent to this,
and the defendant said he should have a witness, and called
his father Mr. Pyke, sen. The defendant then said he could
not pay the money until a Chancery suit, out of which he was
to receive 300/. or 400/., was decided, and he subsequently
offered a sum of 10/. in part payment ; adding, if Mr. Arm-
strong did not give him time for the remainder, he should cer-
tainly make out a bill against him. In this bill a sum of 20/.
Was demanded for negotiating the sale of the school, although
Mr. Bromley, the former partner of the defendant, had admit-
ted to Mr. Hooker that two guineas would be ample payment.
Mr. Hooker was examined, and proved the facts stated by
Counsel.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. Busily)
addressed the Jury for the defendant. The defendant had
never denied his liability, but he would satisfactorily prove
that a larger sum was due him for business done for the
plaintiff.
Several witnesses were examined ; among whom was _

Garrett Sheridan, who stated that he was formerly clerk
to Mr. Pyke, senior. He recollected Armstrong calling
upon the defendant, and asking the loan of 101., as there
were some executions out against him. The defen-
dant refused, saying that Armstrong owed him some
money already. Plaintiff replied, " I have given you 30/. on
account ;" and Mr. Pyke said, " I have not made out my
Bill yet. I shall not advance you any more." On his cross-
examination, the witness said he had been in trouble in last
March about putting in sham-bail, lie had been admitted as
evidence against the party, and they had been convicted.
Lord DENMAN, in summing sip observed, that no evidence
had been given as to the set-oft. of 421. 17s. 9d., and the ques-
tion of credibility rested between Mr. Hooker and Sheridan.
As the defendant had not called his father who was present at
the conversation, and who was likely to be the best possible
witness for his son, tine Jury must presume that what Mr.
Hooker had stated, was true in every particular.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, 271. 18s., de-
ducting 21. 2s. as the defendant's, claim for selling the school
for the plaintiff.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.

Ro7dert Clark, aged 56, indicted for a rape upon Mary
Patten, aged only eight years.
wentevidence of the child, which is unfit for publication,
vrnt to
prove the charge, which was corroborated to some ex-
tent by the mother.
Mr. John Leeson,. a surgeon, who has recently drawn pub-
lic attention towards him on account of his publishing a theory
of his own, stated that the commission of such offence is im-
possible, and examined the child about a week after the as-
satlt, and delivered an opinion accordant with his peculiar
views upon such cases.
The prisoner denied the charge.
Mr. Baron BOLLAND summed up.
The Jury, after a few minutes consultation, acquitted the
prisoner.
John Sadling, aged 19, was indicted for stabbing, cutting,
and wounding Catherine Shury, with intent to kill and murder.
A second count charged him with intent to do her some grie-
vous bodily harm—a third with intent to resist lawful appre-
hension for robbery.
The prosecutrix stated that she resides at No. 4, Love-lane,
Lower Thames-street, and is a married woman. On the even-
ing of Saturday, the 6th of June, she was watching the arrival
of steam-vessels upon Fresh Wharf, with one of her children,
when she felt the prisoner making an attempt to pick her
pocket, having lifted up her gown for that purpose. She seized
his hand in the very act; and he immediately drew a knife
from his pocket, with which he stabbed her in the face. She
screamed for assistance, and he then struck her with his fist,
and :Again attempted to stab her ; but she warded off the blow,
which fell upon her shawl and cut it.
Cross-examined by Mr. DOANE (for the defence)—There
Were several persons about.
John Ravenscroft, an officer employed on Fresh Wharf,
hearing the cries of the last witness and her child, ran to her
assistance. She was bleeding from the face, and the blood had
fallen upon the child. He seized the prisoner, and a rush was
made, but he held him fast.- The knife now produced was
afterwards picked up near the spot.
The prosecutrix was recalled, and having examined the
knife, declared it to be the same the prisoner used. It was
a small double-bladed penknife.
Mr. Croft, a surgeon, stated that he examined the wound
in the face of the last witness, and dressed it. It was near
the temperal artery, but was not of itself serious. It was
such a wound as the knife produced would inflict.
The prisoner, who is a foreigner, in his defence, said he
was as innocent as a baby.
The prisoner's landlady gate him a good character.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE summed up, and the Jury returned
a verdict of Guilty on the second count.

NEW COURT.
John Fry, aged 30, and James Weeks, aged 40, were in-
dicted for stealing one bushel of oats, the property of William
'Brooks.
The prosecutor, an extensive corn-dealer in Brunswick-
square, stated that the prisoner Fry was a cab proprietor, and
was in the habit of dealing with him for corn. On the day
mentioned in the indictment the prisoners came to his ware-
house to remove some corn Fry had purchased, and on that
occasion the oats in question were taken away.
The case was quite clear, and the jury returned a verdict of
Guilty, but recommended the prisoners to mercy on account
of their previous good character.
The COMMON SERGEANT said he should attend to the recom-
mendation of the jury, although he could not concur in it.