The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-21 00:00:00

GILL V PAULETT.

This was an action against a Frenchman for an assualt.
The defendant pleaded, severally, the general issue, that he
struck plaintiff in self-defence, and that plaintiff had committed
a tresspass. _

Mr.•ADOLPHUS stated that the plaintiff bad been reduced
from affluent circumstances to poverty, and that he had married
a woman who had a daughter of a previous husband. This
girl, who was about fifteen or sixteen, had been sent out to
service. She was employed by the defendant, on whom it
seems her appearance made a favourable impression, and the
girl took lodgings, at the suggestion of the defendant, in Rose-
street, Soho, in the house of a Mrs. Efford, who kept a beer-
shop, and there defendant was in the habit of visiting her.
Her parents not seeing her for some time, made inquiries, and
at length discovered where she was living, and they went to
defendant's house, accompanied by Mrs. Efford. They there
saw the defendant's wife, and she sent for her husband. On
his coming in plaintiff began to speak about his daughter, upon
which the defendant took him by the throat, struck him violently
against a glass door, by which some panes were demolished,
pushed him into the street, and gave him a kick at parting.
Mr. Baron PARKE summed up, and the jury found a verdict
for the defendant.

CONSISTORY COURT.

CHICK V. RANISDALE AND CHICK, FALSELY CALLING HERSELF

RAIVISDALE.

In this case the office of Judge was promoted in order to set
a marriage aside on the ground of incest. The King's Advo-
cate, in support of the application for a sentence of a nullity
of marriage, stated the facts as follows :
In 1795 Charles Goodlar,d was married to Jane Gale, and
the issue of the marriage was two daughters, Ann and Joan.
The party in the suit, Mr. Ramsdale, married' Ann, who died
in 1824, leaving him a widower. Joan was also married, but
survived her husband, and on the 11th of July last year Mr.
Ramsdale married Joan, the other sister, then a widow. The
office of the Judge was promoted to set aside this marriage, as
being of an incestuous nature, Mr. Ramsdale having married
two sisters.

Dr. LUSIIINGTON said the case was of a difficult nature, and
upon the material points varied. He would take time to
make up his mind upon them.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

Mr. Thomas Archer, the comedian, formerly of Drury-
lane, and late of the Surrey Theatre, came up to take his
" benefit" of the Act, and was unopposed.
The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER interrogated the peti-
tioner. He inquired of him what was his particular line in
the drama ? He replied that he was what was termed a " tra-
gedian." In answer to further interrogatories it appeared
that Mr. Archer was discharged under the Act in the year
1826 ; he returned to Drury-lane Theatre, where he remained
for a short time, and then quitted for America. He had
visited and exhibited in nearly all parts of the world. He
had been in France, Belgium, Germany, and other parts of
the Continent. He was absent five years, and at the time of
his arrest was engaged at the Surrey Theatre. He said he
was arrested in the theatre.

The Learned COMMISSIONER perceived he had a handsome
wardrobe, and that some of his theatrical dresses were at hotels
on the Continent, where " rude hands" had been laid on them.
He asked, what had Mr. Davidge in his possession ?
The insolvent said Mr. Davidge, the proprietor of the Surrey
Theatre, was a creditor in the schedule for 201. He took a
benefit at that house, and there was a deficiency in the receipts
of 201., for which his dresses were detained. -He considered
them worth about that sum.

The CHIEF COMMISSIONER remarked that he supposed Mr.
Davidge had what was termed in law a lien on them.
It was stated to the Court that a creditor for 1001. could not
be found to be served with notice, and the insolvent said he
had borrowed that sum of a lady some years ago, and was igno-
rant of her residence.

The COURT thought it an extraordinary circumstance.
The insolvent assured the Court that it was a fact. He had
not heard of her for several years, and he never knew her exact
address.

He was discharged. The Court rose till Monday.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

LAMBETH- STREET.

The sister of Thomas Edwards, the blind organist, who, it
will be recollected, projected and accomplished the confine-
ment of Mr. Gee, and for which offence he was afterwards
tried, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, applied for
an order to see her brother at the House of Correction, Cold-
bath-fields, where he is at present undergoing the term of his
sentence. The day not being the usual one for granting or-
ders of this description, and the Magistrates generally making
it a rule not to give an order on any but those stated by the
Visiting Justices, unless in particular cases, such as serious
illness, &c.
Mr. HARDWICK asked the applicant to state the grounds upon
which she claimed the order. She said that her brother Ed-
wards had, for some months past, completely lost the use of
his limbs, so that he was obliged to be lifted in arid out of
bed. His bodily health was also so impaired, through fretting
and excessive grief, that he was almost worn to a skeleton ;
and it was the opinion of every person who saw him, that he
could not survive the period of his imprisonment.

Mr. HA nnwicK, under these circumstances, at once granted
the order ; and while the officer was making it out the appli-
cant, in answer to a question put to her, said that Mrs. Can-
ning had visited her (applicant's) brother, Edwards, on the
Friday before, and had rendered him all the assistance she
could since his conviction.