The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-17 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

:sitting at Nisi Prius, in Middlesex, before Mr.
Justice Byles and a Common Jury.)
RICHARDSON V. LEWIS-COCK FIGHTING.

This was an action to recover £25, part of a stake
deposited to abide the event of a cock fight, which
was to have come off
_at Birmingham, on the 24th
April, 1854.
Mr. Sergeant Hayes and Mr. Beaseley appeared
for the plaintiff; and Mr. E. James, Q.C., and
Mr. T. Williams, for the defendant.
In the course of the plaintiff's case it was stated
he resided at a house in Boston called the King's
.Arms, which house was kept by his mother-
; and the defendant was a gentleman of pro-
perty and a magistrate, residing in the neighbour-
hood of C
Cardiff. The defendant, notwithstanding
his position in life, was addicted to cock fighting,
an amusement of which the plaintiff had also been
fond until this transaction sickened him of it, and
he went home and destroyed his birds. In the
spring of 1854 the defendant made the match for
£lOO, but not having birds enough of his own, he
applied through a man named Harrison to the plain-
tiff, who agreed to furnish some birds upon the
condition that he should be allowed to take a fourth
part in the stake. He accordingly remitted the
defendant £5, and at his first interview with the
defendant, which was on the morning of the fight;
he handed him the remaining £2O. The fight lasted
all day, and was about half over when the police
on the second morning interfered and prevented its
continuance. Hewson, the stakeholder, refused to
give up the stakes, and the defendant then said his
man Martin should give him a notice demanding
the money. This was the first intimation which

the plaintiff had that the match had been fought in
Martin's name. Subsequently an action was com-
menced by Martin against MWSOII in the Exche-
quer,
and the £lOO was recovered. The plaintiff
after that applied to the defendant for his ;share of
the stake, but the only answer he got was, " I have
only to say that my attorney laid Martin the money
he being tha plaintiff in the case." In an affidavit
which had been used before ajudge at chanabers it
was stated that Martin had sent by post to the
plaintiff £l5, but that sum the plaintiff positively
denied having received.
On the part of the defendant Martin was called.
He stated that he was an innkeeper at Cardiff, that
he made the match, and not Sir. Lewis. It -was to
him (Martin) that the plaintiffsent the £5, ai id also
paid the £2O at Birmingham. He afterwards
brought the action, and received a cheque from
his attorney for £lB 155., the plaintiff's share, after
deducting the expenses, and he transmitted to
the plaintiff by post £l5, intending to pay the
rest subsequently. Mr. Lewis contributed £35
towards the match, and sir. Morgan Thomas
£4O. Mr. Williams, the attorney for the defendant,
stated that Martin gave him instructions to sue
Hewson, and that he did act know until the pro-
ceedings terminated and he drew the cheques that
Mr. Lewis had anything to do with it. The phrase
" my attorney," in Mr. Lewis's letter was explained
by the facts that Mr. Williams was attorney for
Mr. Lewis' his cousin, at the same time that he was
employed by Martin to sue Hewson. Mr. Lewis
himself was not called, but it was said that his
absence was caused by the illness of his wife.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £25.
TANTONY v. DASH-" WHO STOLE THE DUCKS ?"

Both parties in this case live at Ham-common, the
plaintiff being a gardener and beer-house keeper,
and the defendant a barber. The action was to
recover damages for slander, and the defendant
denied having uttered the words.
The plaintiff's case was that on the morning of
Sunday, the 20th March last, he went to defendant's
shop to get shaved, and having noticed that de-
fendant's duck-house had been pulled down, said to
him, " Why, Jacob, you have pulled your duck-
house down." He replied, " And quite time, too,
when my ducks were stolen," and he addedthat the
plaintiff had stolen them, and that they had been
cooked at his house, and a supper given to his
friends. The plaintiff asked him if he meant what
he sail, and ho said that he did. The plaintiff went
away and returned in ten minutes, and demanded
to know who was the defendant's author for what
he had said. The defendant persisted in his state-
ment, but refused to give his author. This slander
had got disseminated in the neighbourhood, to the
plaintiff's ,serious detriment, and people in the
streets called after him, " Who stole the ducks ?"
The defendant's version of the case was, that he
said to plaintiff, " I have lost the ducks, and am
given to understand that they went to your house."
He refused to tell plaintiff who it was that had told
him this, but said that he might heal: it again at a
future day. He had never said that the plaintiff
had stolen the ducks.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages £5.

SURREY SESSIONS.—May 16.

The May adjourned sessions for the county of
Surrey commenced this morning at the Court-
house, Newington-causeway, before J. E. Johnson,
Esq., chairman, T. Tilson, Esq., deputy-chairman,
and a full bench of magistrates.

OLD COURT.
(Before T. Tilson, Esq.)

William Pretty, 14, William Partridge, 14, and
George Rice,. 14, pleaded guilty to stealing a
shawl, the property of John Vollett, and a shawl,
the property of Ellen Hughes. They also pleaded
guilty to assaulting George Boden with intent to
rob him.

Evidence was given that Pretty and Partridge
were desperate young thieves, and that they in-
duced the other prisoner' to leave his parents' home,
and join them in committing these depredations.
The father of Rice here stepped forward,
and said he was a deal-porter, and unfor-
tunately fifteen months ago he lost his wife.
He did all he could to give his son a good
education, and bring him up to honest ways, but
Pretty had seduced him from home, and brought
him into the present difficulty.
The Assistant-Gaoler said he understood it was
Rice's first introduction to prison, and the others
had been in custody before. They had acknow-
ledged to him that they had roamed about stealing
whatever they could lay their hands on, and now
they wished to be sent to a reformatory school.
All the three were clever lads, and were apt at
learning. _ _

Mr. Tilson sentenced Rice to one day's impri-
sonment, and then to be given up to his father.
The other prisoners must be imprisoned three
months with hard labour, and at the expiration of
that time they would be confined in a reformatory
institution three years each.
John Davis, alias Mason, 16, pleaded guilty to
breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Mr.
William Henry Searnett, at Clapham, and stealing
therefrom four silver forks and other articles.

The prisoner was taken into custody near the
prosecutor's house with property in his possession,
and the court was now informed that he had been
previously convicted for a similar offence.
The prisoner begged to be sent to a reformatory
school, as he was tired of thieving.
The Chairman told him he was too old for a re-
formatory school, but he would see what Govern.
ment could do for him. Under those circumstances
he should sentence him to 12 months' hard labour,
and most likely he would be sent by the Govern-
ment to Parkhurst.

NEW COURT.
(Before E. Johnson, Esq.)

William Helton and Henry Bailey, carmen, were
indicted for stealing a quantity of horses' food, the
property of Messrs. Roach and Son, granary-
keepers, Pickled Herring-wharf, Dockhead.
Mr. arrison prosecuted, and Mr. ley de-
fended Helton ; the other prisoner was undefended.
Mr. Roach said that Bailey was in his employ as
carman, and his duty was to look after the horses
and feed them. Plenty of food was allowed them,
but latterly the horses had looked so bad that he
suspected that the food was not given to them, but
taken away. On Sunday morning, the Ist inst.,
he went to the stable, and saw Helton outside with
a bag of food, consisting of oats and beans, and
Bailey was near the door, inside. Believing that
it was his property, he gave them both into custody.
The food was here produced by Vellacott, 224 M,
and the prosecutor said it was similar to that he
allowed for his horses.

Mr. Lilley made an ingenious appeal to the jury
on behalf of Helton, contending that the corn was
sweepings which he had saved for the rabbits, and
there was no pretence for charging him with the
felony.
Paley denied having stolen the property pro-
duced.

The Chairman briefly summed up, and
The
.jury returned a verdict of acquittal.
Harriet Goodchild, 17, pleaded guilty to stealing
a gown at Wittey, near Guildford, the property of
Samutl Clarke.

It being her first offence,
The Court sentenced her to four months' hard
Labour.

POLICE
.INT.ELLIGENCE--.Api•il 16.

MANSION-TIOUSE.—James Poulter, a compo-
sitor, was charged with having stolen a quantity of
type, paper, and printing cards, the property of his
employer, Mr. Dillon, a printer, in Water-lane.

It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner
had been in the employ of the prosecutor for a
period of three months as overseer in the printing-
office, and was under a fortnight's notice to leave
on Saturday last, when about four o'clock in the
afternoon he asked permission to go, alleging that
he had to meet a gentleman about a new situation.
Mr. Dillon permitted him to go, and paid him his
wages, but almost immediately after he was told
that the prisoner had stolen some type and paper,
upon which he went with a policeman and the
journeyman who had given the information to the
prisoner's residence at Newington-butts, sending
the journeyman to the door first to speak to the
prisoner. While he was so speaking the prosecutor
and the policeman went towards the door, and upon
seeing them the prisoner immediately shut the door,
and the prosecutor and officer had to knock ten
minutes before it was opened for their admission.
The prisoner, after opening the door again, was
asked by Mr. Dillon what he had done with the
type and paper, and he denied that he had any of
the former, although he admittcd that lie had a few
offcats" of paper, which he had thought it no harm
to take. They then all went into the garden at the
back of the house, where the officer observed that

the ground had been recently dug up at the back
of a shed, an .1 upon turning up the mould a packet
of type, weighing slb. 60z., was found lying a few
inches below the surface. Ile said he had placed it
there a long while ago, but the paper and cord with
which it was tied were dry, and he was taken into
custody ; some sheets of paper and two packs of
printing cards being subsequently found in the
house, which, as well as the type, was identified by
the prosecutor as his property.
An attempt was at first made to show that the
type was the prisoner's own property, but ulti-
mately he pleaded guilty, and was remanded, in
order to be dealt with summarily in petty sessions.
Thomas Turner Ward, a well-dressed young man,

was charged with stealing £5 belonging to his
employer, Mr. W. Stoper, solicitor, 52, Cheapside.
Mr. W. Stoper—The prisoner was a clerk in my
service. On the sth May I gave to the prisoner
£3lO in bank notes to pay into my bankers, the
notes consisting of a £lOO note, four £5O notes, and
a £lO note. I now produce my pass-book, in
which there is an entry of £305 paid, in on that
day. The entry when the book was brought back
to me was £3lO, but it has since been altered by
the banker's clerk, in consequence of my calling his
attention to it. The original entry was, no doubt,
£305, but it had been very clumsily altered to
£3lO. On Saturday I discovered it, and fold the
prisoner he had robbed me, and he said he had not ;
but when I produced the banker's book, and pointed
to this entry, he said, " I admit I altered that to
deceive you. I called at a publichouse as I went
to the bank, to get a glass of ale, and I suppose I
dropped a£s note there." I told him that could
not be, because there was no £5 note among those
which I had given him ; but he said I gave him one
on the same day to get a bankruptcy stamp with,
and that, as he had lost that, he paid for the stamp
with a £lO note. I told him I believed I had given
him a £lO note to pay for the bankruptcy stamp,
land that it was at another time of the day. He
had had the money for the bank in his possession
some hours before he was sent for the bankruptcy
stamp. I have not yet had time to trace any of the
notes, and I wish for a remand.
The prisoner, who had nothing to say, was then
remanded.

BOW-STREET.—Priscilla Bryant a middle-
aged married woman, was charged with forging an
order for £lOO, and thereby defrauding the Bank
of London.

The prisoner was brought up in the custody of
Inspector Whicher, and Sergeant Robinson of the
detective force, and Mr. Mullens attended to prose-
cute as solicitor to the Bankers' Protection Society.
It was proved by Mr. G. Robins, managing clerk
of the Charing-cross branch of the Bank of London,
that a sum of £lOO was deposited on interest in the
name of George Bryant, in May, 1857, In No-
vember last the prisoner called at the bank with
the deposit receipt in her possession, and, repre-
senting herself as the wife of George Bryant,
gave notice of the withdrawal of the amount. She
was told that the money could not be paid to her
except upon the written order of her husband, and
a few days afterwards she returned with an order
purporting to be signed by her husband. The
money was then paid to her, with the intereet due
upon it, making altogether £lOO 16s. ld. They
subsequently heard from the husband that the
order was a forgery.
A letter in the prisoner's handwriting was put in
and read. It was addressed to her husband, and
announced her intention to leave the country and
never return to him in consequence of his ill-treat-
ment. She added, " that she alone had taken the
money, which she considered due to her, and she
had not had any assistance from any one."
Inspector Whicher found her in the company of
a man named James, in Charles-street, Knights-
bridge, on Saturday last, and, on taking her into
custody on the present charge, she said, " I did it
myself; this man had nothing to do with it."
Mr. Mullens said he did not propose to go fully
into the case to-day, but to apply for a remand to
a future day, when he should have much evidence
to offer.