The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-14 00:00:00

evidence that he had received money from Feist (70) on
the 6th October in the morning. He said that £7O was no
part of the proceeds of my cheque. He said he had given
his own cheque to Feist in the afternoon, and received the
£7O from him in the morning. That account was pro-
duced and shown to defenchint, and he admitted it to be in
his handwriting. That is an account between Castrique
and Feist. He said he had paid £lOO or £lO5 into his
banker's on the 6th October. He said the £7O he had re-
ceived of Feist formed part of the money he paid in.
Cross-examined—I brought the action because I had his
(defendant's) cheque, and as the principal. Defendant
has never had any account with me. I entered the account
to Mr. Feist per Castrique. It is entered in my ledger to
Mr. Feist per Castrique. I produce my ledger containing
a debtor and creditor account with Feist. There is an entry
of this cheque in that account. There are entries both
before and after that date with Feist. I have had a
great many transactions with Mr. Feist. The cheque has Mr.
Feist's indorsement on it. The ledger was not produced at
the trial. I was cross-examined at the trial about
putting this cheque to Feist's account. That was
the answer I gave to the question. At that time I did say
something about Castrique's name being in the account,
and offered to produce my cheque-book. I was nonsuited
at the trial. I swear to pledge my oath that Castrique
said the CO was no part of the proceeds of the cheque. I
took no note of the evidence. I speak now from my recol-
lection. I spoke to my solicitor directly afterwards. lam
not a bill discounter as well as civil engineer. Unfor-
tunately in regard to Feist to a considerable amount I have
discounted cheques, but not bills.
Re-examined--I treated Feist as an agent. Before the
trial I had made no inquiries at two banks. I had made in-
quiries at Olding's, but not at Saptes'. Saptes' are my
bankers. I had not the two gentlemen who were here
to-day, but only the cashier from Messrs. Olding's. No
one attended from my bankers. The person from Olding's
was examined, and upon the amount paid in by Castrique
on the 6th October. Ho was not examined as to what the
of amount was made up.
The defendant was commited for trial but admitted to
bail.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
AN AMOROUS TALLOW CHANDLER—CURIOUS CHARGE.
—William Butler, a tallow chandler, residing at 25, Greek-
street, Soho, was charged with being in the house No. 7,
Nassau street, Soho, for an unlawful purpose.
From the evidence of Michael Phillips, a waiter, and
who, from the nature of his occupation, is frequently out
all night, it appeared that on the previous evening, about
about six o'clock, he went home, suspecting all was not
right, and on knocking at the door several times could not
gain admittance ; he therefore resorted to the window, and
on opening it to his very great surprise saw the prisoner in
the act of buttoning up his clothes. He then gave him
into custody; and he wished to state that it was not
the first time he had caught him in hisltimse-r-on one oc-
casion on going home early in the moraine,
tick t•
erfounfl him
in a state of nudity under his bed. • Ile'lold him toi
keep away, but he would not: and his wife encouraged hiiu
to visit her.
A constable said he had been drinking at the time.
Prisoner said he would admit he had been drinking.
Mr. Bingham ordered the prisoner to enter into his own
recognisances for three months to keep away from the com-
plainant's house and to be of good behaviour.
The wife, who was in court during the hearing of the
case, and conduted herself with great levity, here exclaimed
" May I speak ?"

Mr. Bingham—No. We do not want to hear anything
of your affairs.
The wife—Where's the child?

A person in court (significantly)—Whose child
The required recognizance being entered into, the parties
[eft the court.

THIS DAY'S MARKETS.

COVENT GARDEN.