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

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sitting at Nisi Prins, 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 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
lie
resided at a house in Boston called the King's
Arms, which house was kept by his mother-
in-law ; and the defendant was a gentleman of pro-
perty and a magistrate residing in the neighbour-
hood of 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 .E2O. 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 Hewson 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 paid Martin the money
he being the plaintiff in the case." In an affidavit
which had been used before a judge at chambers it
was stated that Martin had sent by post to the
plaintiff £l5, but that sum the piaintiff 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 Mr. Lewis. It was to
him (Martin) that the plaintiff sent the £5, and 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 Mr. Morgan Thomas
£4O. Mr. Williams, the attorney for the defendant,
stated that Martin gave him instructions to sue
Hewson, and that he did not 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 added that the
plaintiff had stolen them, and that they had been
cooked at his house, and a sapper given to his
friends. The plaintiff asked him if he meant what
he said, and he 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 hear 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 X 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 nrisoner 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 lie 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. Harrison prosecuted, and Mr. Li,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 kis 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.
Bailey 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
Samuel. Clarke.
It being her first offence,
The Court sentenced her to four months' hard
labour.