The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-06 00:00:00

IN RE STRANGE.

This bankrupt was described as of Stevenage, miller, and
to-day came up for his examination. He Was opposed by
Mr. Cox (Willough and Cox), and supported by Mr. T.
Beard. An adjournment was ordered for bankrupt to
furnish further accounts.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
THE BOOKBINDING TRADE.-WILSBY V. LEWIS.

This was a summons to recover a fortnight's wages in
ieu of notice.

Mr. Buchanan appeared for the defendant.
Plaintiff stated that he had been employed by the de-
fendant at certain wages, which had been reduced, as he
agreed to go in for a constant situation.

Mr. Buchanan, for defendant, said that plaintiff was only
employed upon a certain job, and that it was customary in
the bookbinding trade to take in a man fsr a job, and to
dismiss him as soon as it was finished.
Plaintiff said that might be so, but in this case he was
employed at a lower rate of wages than those usuallypaid to
jobbing men ; and he accepted such wages on condition of
having constant employment, and the notice contingent
upon such a situation.

His Honour gave plaintiff a verdict.
TILE BETTING ACT AND STAKEHOLDERS.-B/GWOOD V.

BRITEN.

This was an action to recover 21s. under the following
peculiar circumstances. Plaintiff was in defendant's pub-
lic-house, in Leadenhall-market, on the evening of the prize
fight between Sayers and Benjamin. Much betting was
going on, and at last a young man came in and said he
would bet 20s. to Is. that Benjamin had won the fight.
Plaintiff said he would have a pound's worth, and staked a
shilling in the defendant's hands, the young man staking his
20s. The following morning he found that Benjamin had
lost, and waited upon the defendant for the stakes. The
defendant refused to give them up unless the other better
was agreeable, and hence the present summons.

His Honour said prize fighting was illegal and betting
was illegal, and therefore plaintiff could only claim Is,

Verdict for Is.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

GUILDHALL.

ANSWERING FOIL BAD RVLATlONS.—Elizabeth Moore,
an intelligent-loJking little girl about 16 years of ago, was
charged with robbery ; and after the offence had been fully
inquired into, the question was put, " Does any one know
anything about this girl ?" After an answer in the nega-
tive, an officer stated someting about prisoner's father,
mother, and sisters. Springate, the gaoler, said he knew
nothing of the girl, but a metropolitan police-officer was
put forward as a person who knew something. Upon being
sworn, this officer stated that he did not know anything
about the girl, but her father was not the best of persons.
Her mother was even now in prison, and added something
about the rest of the family which had no earthly connection
with the prisoner's present offence, but which was patiently
listened to.
The girl was remanded till to morrow.

ALLEGED EXTENSIVE EMBEZZLEMENT.—DanieI Keshan,
a very respectably-attired young man, described as a clerk,
was charged with embezzlement.

Mr. Do Jersey appeared for the prosecutors, and Mr.
Beard for the prisoner.

It appeared that the prisoner was clerk to Messrs.
Mitchell and Co., and it was part of his duty to collect
monies and account for the same to his employers.
Two witnesses proved paying sums of £l3 155., £l2 108.,
and £6 Bs. to the prisoner. No entries were made in the
books as to the amounts £l3 155., or £6 Bs., but in reference
to the sum of £l2 10s. there was an entry in the cash jour-
nal of £7 13s.

Alderman Allen inquired if that amount had been paid
on account, and he was informed that the prisoner had en-
tered it simply as cash.

Mr. De Jersey said, that the case was very aggravated,
inasmuch as the prisoner had falsified the books, entering
one sum in their cash book £7 13s. and another in the
ledger £9 12s. The amount £l3 15s. was not entered in the
cash book, but was entered in the ledger upon a different
date to that upon which the prisoner received the money.
The prisoner had received a cheque from one person (in-
debted to Messrs. Mitchell and Co.), and that cheque had
been paid into the Union Bank, and an inquiry was pro-
ceeding in the bank as to by whom the cheque was paid in.
The depositions were being read when our reporter left,
but the case will be concluded to-day.