The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-24 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. ROBINSON.

The prisoner was convicted of obtaining two dogs
by false pretences, and was sentenced by the Re-
corder of Liverpool to seven years' penal servitude.
The point reserved was whether a dog was a chattel
so-as to come within the statute. -
Mr. Littler, for the prisoner, contended that a dog
was not a chattel.
Mr. Brett said it was not a chattel at common
law, and it was not so, because in the books it was
stated that it was not thought right that a man
should die for so inferior an animal; but as to a
horse, that was stated to be good for food, and.
therefore, stealing a horse was made a capital
offence. The punishment for stealing a swan was,
that it should be tied up by the beak, and the of-
fender should pile up wheat until it was covered.
Mr. Baron Martin said that did not bear much
proportion to seven years' penal servitude.
Lord, Campbell said it was clear that stealing a
dog was not larceny ; that being so, and there being
a specific punishment of a milder nature for stealing
a dog, it would not be right to say that obtaining
a dog by false pretences should subject the offender
to seven years' penal servitude.
Conviction quashed.
(Before all the Judges, with the exception of Mr.
Justice Erle.)
THE QUEEN V. SKEENE AND FREEMAN.
'The indictment alleged that the prisoners having
been intrusted with a bill of lading they had frau-
dulently disposed of it for their own benefit, and
the question arose on sth and 6th Vic., cap. 39,
which contained a proviso that no agent should be
liable to be convicted if he should, before indicted,
have disclosed the facts before any commissioner of
bankruptcy. The prisoner pleaded not guilty before
the Lord Chief Baron. At the close of the evi-
dence the prisoners' counsel tendered a disclosure
which the prisoners had made before the Court of
Bankruptcy. The counsel for the Crowu objected
that under the plea of not guilty the disclosures
were not admissible. The Chief Baron admitted

he evidence, and he now asked this Court whether

the written examinations were admissible, and
whether the examination was a disclosure within
the statute.

Mr. Sergeant Ballantine appeared on the part of
Skeen., and he had to support the objection made
upon the trial and to contend that they were not
properly convicted. The main question to be raised
was, whether a disclosure in the Court of Bank-
ruptcy, which was a discloSure of the facts, did or
did not render the prisoner liable to be con-
victed. As to the first question, whether they were
admissible—

Lord Campbell said if they amounted to a defence
hey were admissible.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said it was conceded

that a disclosure had been made which was sub-
stantially a disclosure of the facts, and a deposition
had been .taken before a magistrate which was sub-
stantially the same. Assuming the examina-
tion in the Bankruptcy Court to be a dis-
closure, it could not be destroyed by something
that took place elsewhere. It was a good disclo-
sure under the statute, unless something had taken
place before to destroy the effect of it.
The Chief Baron said there was nothing left for
them to disclose ; it was fully known before.
Lord Campbell—After one disclosure could there
be another ? The depositions and disclosures were
precisely the same.
Mr. Sergeant Ballaptine said the evidence before
the magistrate might be very imperfect ; all that
was wanted there wad a prima facie case to commit.
The words of this statute were very clear; it was
to disclose before indictment. Until the bill was
found by the grand jury it was no indictment.
Chief Justice Cockburn—lt must not be a spon-
taneous disclosure, because a case was known where
such an attempt had been made. The Crown said
the facts were already known before the magistrate.
There could be no subsequent disclosures.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said the prisoner had
been bound to make this disclosure.
Chief Justice Cockburn said the act did not apply
where the facts had been already known to the
world.

Lord Campbell—Supposing the depositions had
been read, and the prisoner had said, "It is all
true," would that be a disclosure ?
Mr• Sergeant Ballantine said it would, if made

in the Court of Bankruptcy, and it would warrant
him, in asking for the protection of the Act 'of
Parliament.

Mr. Giffard was heard on behalf of Freeman.
The prosecutors themselves examined the bank-
rupts at the Court of Bankruptcy, and enforced the
disclosures.

The Chief Baron—And. now do not appear P
Mr. Giffard—They have obtained their money.
The Court—And having got that do not care
how the criminal law may be defeated.
The Court took time to consider.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

(Before the Judge-Ordinary and a Special Jury.)

TODD AND PRICE V. SUMPSION AND OTHERS.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott, Mr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr.
Mills were counsel for the plaintiffs ; Mr. M.
Chambers, Q.C, Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr.
Thompson Chitty, for the defendents.
The questions raised in this case were whether
the will of the late Mr. Benjamin Tratt, of Hamil-
ton-place, St. John's-wood, dated the 27th of
January, 1858, was duly executed, whether at the
time of its execution the testator was of testamen-
tary capacity, and whether it was executed by him
in consequence of the undue influence obtained
over him by Miss Sarah Todd. The will was pro-
pounded by the executors and opposed by Mrs.
Sumpsion, the sister, Mr. Spriggs, the nephew,
and other relatives of the testator.
The trial was resumed at the sitting of the Court
by the examination of witnesses in opposition to
the will. The principal witness was the defendant,
Mr. Chas. Francis Spriggs, who stated that he was
always much loved by his uncle, Mr. Tratt, and (It
very good terms with his aunt ; but that after Miss
Todd went to live with them she gradually obtained
a complete control over Mr. Tratt,"and induced him
to forbid the house to him and other relations. His
account of the quarrel with Miss Todd was that he
had given her no provocation whatever when she
threw the candle at him, but was sitting quietly in
a chair, and had not spoken to her. He admitted
that his uncle was very angry with him for sum-
moning Miss Todd before a magistrate. Upon Mr.
Tratt's retirement in 1849 he gave Mr. Spriggs the
goodwill of the business and the stock, and from
time to time assisted him with various sums of
money, amounting in the whole to about £5,000.
Mr. Spriggs added that he never had an unkind
word from his aunt, that he had never neglected
his business, and that he never went in a state of
intoxication to his uncle's house, as Miss Todd had
suggested. Mr. Spriggs complained with great
warmth of not having been allowed to see his
uncle before his death, and appeared to weep when
he mentioned that he had not been invited to the
funeral. One of the sons of Mr. Sprigs also de-
scribed the interest taken by Mr. Tratt in his wel-
fare, and said that previous to 1855 the old man had
frequently promised " to make a gentleman of him."
The examination of Mrs. Sumpsion, the sister of
the testator, who is too old and infirm to attend,
was read. She described her brother as having been
much affected by his wife's death, and having
shortly afterwards become quite childish. He was
accustomed, she said, among other foolish habits, to
have his legs nursed and dandled by Miss Todd, to
the tune of " Here we go up, up, up, Here we go
down, down, down," much to his gratification. Mrs.
Sumpsion expressed her great disappointment at
finding that the will was not to be read at the
funeral, for " what else had she gone there for ?"
and her surprise at the small sum (£500) left to
her by her brother. Mrs. Sumpsion's evidence
was partly corroborated by her servant, Lydia
Linfield, who mentioned, in her cross-exa-
mination, that she remembered the time when'
Miss Todd was a kitchenmaid in the household of
Lord Wensleydale. In addition to the evidence
adduced on their behalf reliance was placed by the
defendants upon the difference between the provi-
sions propounded, the declared intentions of
the testator, and the contents of previous wills ;
and upon the offer of marriage to Miss Todd, and
the transfer of £45,000 stock to her name.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott, in reply, submitted that the
evidence on both sides clearly proved that the old
gentleman was a perfectly free agent in every act
that he had done up to the day of his death.
Sir C. Cresswell summed up, and

The juryimmediately returned a verdict upon all
the issues for the plaintiffs, establishing the validity
of the will.

Ajuryraan asked whether a recommendation of
the jury with regard to the payment of costs would
have any weight with the Court in a case of this
kind ?

Sir C. Cresswell said it would not. That was a
matter entirely in the hands of the Court.
His lordship then decreed probate of the will, and
reserved the question of costs for consideration.