The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-05 00:00:00

FINCH V. COCKER.

Mr. BARSTOWE showed cause against a rule obtained by
Mr. Platt, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why judg-
ment should not be arrested. It was an action on a bail
bond ; the plaintiff was nonsuited, with liberty to move to
have a verdict entered for the amount of the bond. A rule
to enter a verdict for the plaintiff was obtained and made
absolute ; after which the Court granted the present rule,
on the grounds that the defendant had been arrested in the
name of Cocker, whereas his real name was Cocken, and
the bail bond was given in the latter name.
The rule to arrest judgment was made absolute.
CHARTERS V. BAYNTUN.

This was the only case of any interest or importance
brought on. Mr. Erle stated the case. It was an action
brought .by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant
301. 10s., the amount of a bill of exchange. The plain-
tiffs, in. reality, were Messrs. Charters, Holland, and Co.,
coachmakers in Bond-street. The defendant was a young
gentleman of rank in society, the son of a beneficed clergy-
man, who had a large private fortune. He hired from the
plaintiffs, in 1822, a stanhope, for the use of which, for
twelve months, he agreed to pay thirty guineas, and cove-
nanted, besides, to pay for any serious injuries it might
have sustained while in his possession. He passed his pro-
note for. the rn-nr:-, nr.-1 lipviiv-r used the carriage
for several months, he brought it back to Lile piali.tir.; much
damaged. He not only neglected repairing the vehicle,
but absolutely declined paying the amount of his note.
The case was a clear one, and he believed there was no
defence.
The documents having been read, the Jury were about
to return a verdict, when a gentleman said that he was the
defendant, and meant to contest the action. Immediately
Mr. Thessiger appeared for the defence. Evidence was
then gone into to substantiate the plaintiff's case.
Mr. THESSIGER stated the case for the defence. The
defence was nominally made by the defendant ; but in
reality it was made by his father, who had a large family to
provide for, and could not therefore be answerable for the
extravagance of his son. The present case must fall to the
ground. The defendant, as would be proved, was not of
age till twelve months after the date of the bill, and that
as the Jury knew, was a perfect bar to the action. The
father, therefore, for his own sake, and for the public good,
resisted this action. The Learned Counsel then proceeded
to contend that the defendant was a giddy young man,
and that the articles supplied to him were not necessaries.
The conduct of the plaintiffs was inexcusable. They knew
he was under age, and had no fortune. A friend had called
on them especially to warn them of that important fact.
The Jury retired, and returned in about twenty minutes,
when the foreman said, " we find for the defendant, and
we regret that the law obliges us to do so, for the conduct
of the young man is highly disgraceful."

I TWO (SUPPOSED) MURDERED INFANTS.---.The
^`,vo fine infants, quite dead, and sewed up in a pil-
bodies ot ' with eathers, were' discovered yesterday
low, partly "lose to the wall in front of the es-
morning on the paveine4
-"ash of St. Paul's, Covent-
were
tablishment which belongs to the pt 4,,. he infants
garden. There seems n 6 doul4t bui thaw ,
smothered. An inquest myth° bodiei w ill he helu,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE. 1

MANSION-HO USE.

A lad named James Farrell caused a gentleman, who had
been driving through the City in a gig, to be apprehended
for an assault committed with a horsewhip.
The complainant, who is what is called a flying messen-
ger about the inns in the City, stated that he had been sent
on a message, and as he was in the habit of beating tho
Omnibusses, and other vehicles in speed, he thought he
might as well out-run the defendant's gig. He accordingly
ran before the horse ; but the defendant, without any other
cause than that he had been out-stripped, leaped down
from the seat and lashed him most unmercifully.
The LORD MAYOR—Are you sure you are telling the
whole truth ? Prosecutor—Yes, my Lord. I did no-
thing in the world but just run before his horse.
A witness stated that he saw the lashing, which made
the lad caper about in a very remarkable manner. He
saw no provocation given, and thought it quite an unneces-
sary affair. _ _

The LORD MAYOR—Perhaps you saw the lad capering
about before he got the lashing ? Witness—No, I saw
nothing of that.

The defendant said that the Lord Mayor had put a ques-
tion to the complainant which, if answered truly, would
have fully explained the matter. The fact was, the com-
plainant took it into his head to cut capers and antics be-
fore the horse, which was a very spirited young animal,,
while he (defendant) was driving through Whitechapel.
The horse several times reared, and the crowd were appre-
hensive of great danger, and called out to the boy to drop
his clownish tricks. The remonstrance was disregarded,

and all the way to Gracechurch-street did the flying mes-
senger lead the way flinging his legs and arms about in the
genuine Grimaldi style. The more crowded the street be-
came, the more dangerous, of course, this sort of exhibi-
tion promised to be. To put a complete check to it the
horsewhip was certainly used, and away danced the com-
plainant, cryinc, out murder. The sympathies of the crowd
happened to be divided on the occasion, some thinking that
the punishment was too harsh, and others thinking that a
little more would have done no mischief. The defendant
assured the Lord Mayor that the sole motive for using the
whip was the preventing of mischief.
A gentleman who observed what passed, declared that
the conduct of the boy was calculated to frighten the animal
and that the defendant was in considerable danger.
Although the complainant leaped very high before he got
the lash, he certainly cut a higher caper upon being touched
about the legs.
The LORD MAYOR said the complainant deserved much
more than he got, and it was to be hoped if he ever cut
his, capers again under such circumstances, a horsewhip
would he more liberally used upon him.
Robert Trevitt, the driver of an omnibus, was summoned
for having driven his vehicle furiously along the streets.
Mr. Wood, a gentleman who resides at the west end of
the town, stated that he came to the City in the defendant's
omnibus. As they came along the driver whipped on his
horses, and the vehicle swung from side to side ; and if it
had come in contact with anything, must have been over-
turned. The passengers were in danger in several parts of
the town, particularly at the foot of Holborn-hill and in
Cheapside. It was useless to appeal to the conductor.
That person, upon being requested to speak to the coach-
man, said, " My dear fellow, you know nothing at all about
it. The driver knows what he's about well enough."
Another gentleman confirmed this statement, and
The LORD MAYOR fined the driver 11., and declared that
he should double the penalty upon the next occasion.