The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-23 00:00:00

THE SUIST, LONDON WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 23, 1859.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(TIIIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices.)
IN RE THE MEXICAN AND SOUTH AMERICAN COMPANY,

EX PARTE MOSES AND SIMON lIYAM.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Maxtor of the
Rolls, and his chief clerk's certificate, declining to remove
the names of Messrs. Hymn Brothers from the list of share-
holders of this company in respect of the sale, per broker,
of 600 shares of this company, at 2s. tid. each, to Mr. Ha-
stn.

Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. Roundel rainier, Q.C., ap
peared for the appellant; Mr. Selwyn, Q.C., represented
the respondent.
After hearing counsel on both sides, their lordships were
of opinion that the sale was a fictitious, and sot a bone fide
sale of their shares to Mr. Hason. Their lordships affirmed
the decision of the Master of the Rolls, and dismissed the
appeal, with costs.

MARGATE COUNTY COURT.

(Before the Deputy Judge.)

TILE LATE GALE-IMPORTANT TO OWNERS OF VESSELS-

CHRISTIAN V. WELLS.

This was an action to recover £l3 damages sustained in
consequence of the reckless conduct of those in charge •f
defendant's vessel. Plaintiff is owner of a vessel, which,
during the recent severe gale, was moored in Broadstairs
harbour. Defendant's :vessel being caught in the gale,
dashed into the harbour with all her sails flying, and in-
flicted upon plaintiff's vessel the injuries complained of.
Mr. Buchanan, of London, stated this to the judge, and
called plaintiff, who deposed to the above facts.

For the defence it was urged that it was the plaintiff's
duty to have got out of the way under such circumstances.
Of course under stress of such severe weather as that lately
raging on the coast the defendant's vessel endeavoured to
get out of danger as quickly as possible.
To counteract this defence, Mr. Buchanan called the
harbour master, who said that it was usual to have a man
on the look out to loose the mooring chains when necessary.
He (the harbour master) always gave instructions on such
occasions, and during the late gale was upon the watch.
Now, the water in Broadstairs harbour is very shallow, and
the stream quick, and very unlike those of Ramsgate, and
there was plenty of room for defendant's vessel to have got
in quietly. Those on board defendant's vessel should have
kept a look out.

Defendant still held to his defence that there was very
little room, and that it was plaintiff's duty to have moved,
but his Honour held that, upon the evidence of the harbour
master (an impartial witness), plaintiff must have the
verdict.

Costs allowed.

PROMISSORY Noms AND AGREEMENTS; ROBINS AND

ANOTIEF.R V. BOYS.

This was an action to recover £3l 125., balance of a pro-
missory note for £4o,a.nd interest—defendant being surety.
Mr. Buchanan, of London, for the plaintiff, said that in
June, 1856, Mrs. Robins, then Elizabeth Bishop, advanced
£4O to one Price—defendant becoming surety. Price gave
a bill of sale, the, proceeds, when realised, to be divided be-
tween Mrs. Robins and Price's brother. Tho goods sold,
however, only realised for Mrs. Robins £l3, and the pre-
sent action was brought against the defendant, as surety
upon the promissory note, to recover the balance.
Evidence having been given in support of this statement,
an objection was taken to the promissory note,
Defendant contended that it was an agreement, and, as
such, had not been properly stamped.
Mr. Buchanan was heard in answer to the agreement,
and the Deputy-Judge said it was a very nice point, which
he should reserve for the Judge of the court to decide. The
case could be adjourned, and during the time between now
and the next court day, Mr. Buchanan could furnish the
defendant with a copy of the bill of sale and note for £4O.

POLICE IN2'ELLIGENCE-(TIIIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

EXTRAORDINARY ASSAULT ON A TRADESMAN.-Mr.
Samuel Gawan Nawark Stuart, of 19, Ranelagh-stroet,
publican, was charged before Mr. Bingham with an assault,
under the following extraordinary circumstances :
Mr. George Kindersley Jackson, oilman, of 21, Elizabeth-
Street, Pimlico, said that on the previous evening he was on
one of the Royal Blue omnibuses passing through the Hay-
market to Pimlico, when the conversation with the defen-
dant and others on the omnibus turned on the aristocracy,
apropos of the Duke of Northumberland. The defendant
then said he was one of the Stuarts, and that his cousin was
the rightful heir to tho Crown.

Mr. Bingham said he trembled for the Prince of Wales,
then.

Mr. Jackson said he did. The defendant then said that
his cousin, who was lying dormant, could soon prove that,
and would do away with " the - Queen." lie (Mr. Jack-
son) was a little startled at this, and began to. think the
defendant not right in his mind. The defendant then said
he was one of the warriors (he (witness) supposed of the
Stuarts), and upon this he told the defendant he was more
like a liar than a warrior.

Mr. Bingham said the word "liar" was a bard word to
address to a warrior, or even to a draper, not that the
Stuarts ware a very warlike set.

Mr. Jackson said the coachman was sitting between
them, and the defendant struck him with the back of his
hand across his face; and again, when opposite the Hay-
market Theatre, gave him another blow on the mouth, cut-
ting his lip and causing his nose to bleed very freely. He
then gave him into custody.

Inspector Holden said the defendant had not been
drinking.

The defendant said the complainant said the Emperor of
France was going to take England, and he asked him if he
would say it again, and on his doing so—being a true-born
Englishman (a Yorkshireman)—he struck him. He told
the complainant ho had a son a schoolmaster on board the
Cornwallis, and on tho complainant saying he was a liar he
again struck him. He was sorry he had forgot himself so
far as to strike him.

Mr. Bingham said all he (the defendant) said about liar,
being an Englishman, and about Napoleon taking England,
was very laudable, but he did not think the using of such
language towards the Queen very laudable.
The defendant said he loved the Queen as he did his life.

Mr. Bingham said no one more disapproved of the use of
the word " liar" than he did, and no one would make more
allowance than ho would for a blow struck in return for
giving the lie to a person. But if ever the word was justi-
fied it was when a man on the top of an omnibus used such
language towards our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, and
who boasts of his relative being the heir to the Throne.
He had no right to strike the blow, and had no one to blame
but himself. The blow was not justifiable, and he should
fine him 40s. for the assault, and to find one surety for
three months to be of good behaviour towards the com-
plainant.

A CASE OF TORTURE IN INDIA,—A case of tor-
ture has recently been brought to light in the Umbella dis-
trict. A prisoner was swung un to a tree, his toes just
touching the ground, with the view of extorting confession.
Three days after the man died, and the parties implicated
were committed for trial on the charge of culpable homicide
and torture. The Thanadar, although acquitted of the
charge of culpable homicide, was " convicted of torturing
a prisoner for the purpose of extorting confession," and sen-
tenced to imprisonment for five years, a fine of 500 rupees,
and proscription from Government employment.—Bonibay
Standard, Oct. 2.

, -
DEATH FROM A SHARK BITE,—A fatal accident
of this description occurred on the beach on Thursday
morning. Four boatmen were engaged in pushing off a
boat from the beach, when one of them was seized by a
shark, which carried away the whole of the soft side of the
left thigh, both inside and behind, exposing the bone. The
man was found clinging to the boat by the men who heard
him cry out, and must have been seized behind. He died
on being hauled into the boat. One boatman said he saw
the shark, which he described as having been about 10 or
12 feet long. The accident took place about 60 yards from
the spot where the boy was seized some three weeks back.
Zadras Examiner, Oct. 15.

offence before the magistrates, and sentenced by them to
two months' imprisonment in Coldbath-fields Prison,
Clerkenwell. He appealed against the conviction to the
Court of Quarter Sessions, under the power of appeal given
by the Act of Parliament, and the appeal was heard yes-
terday, and the conviction affirmed by the Assistant-Judge,
who said he would reserve a case under the power vested
in him for the consideration upon appeal of the superior
court. His (Mr. James's) learned friend, Mr. Lush, who
was counsel for the prosecution, objected that the
Assistant-Judge had no paver to reserve a case,
and hence the motion to this court for a writ of habeas cor-
pus. The conviction took place under the 3d section of the
act. cap. 129, which sets out that, " If any person should
by violence, or by threat, or by intimidation, or by molest-
ing, or obstructing another, endeavour to force any work-
man to leave his employer, he shall be deemed guilty of an
offence against the statute." • The following was the form
and terms of conviction which the magistrates followed,
namely, that "in the parish of St. Luke, county of Mid-
dlesex, the defendant, William Perham, did unlawfully,
by threats, try to force Jocelyn to leave the employment
of Messrs. Piper." Now he (Mr. James) submitted that
there was no evidence to support the alleged offence under
the statute, and that the conviction could not be main-
tained. There was no evidence that Perham had
unlawfully by threats forced Jocelyn to leave his em-
ployers' work. There were two objections taken to the
manner in which the offence was stated. In the first
place, it was then eontended, and was contended now,
that the prosecution should have set out the threats
which were used, and the nature of them, in order that
the Court might judge whether they were threats within
the meaning of the statute ; and, secondly, that there was
no evidence that any threat was made, forcibly or other-
wise, to intimidate anybody, and that it must be a threat
that compelled the party to sthom it was made to leave his
employment. Now, the charge did not allege that a
threat was made to any person; and ho submitted to the
Court that it must be shown that a threat was made to the
person.
,It might be that a threat was made to some other
person, as, for instance, a party might threaten a man's wife
or some third party with a view of inducing him (Jocelyn)
to leave his employers ; but this conviction left it entirely
uncertain, because it did not show that any throat or in-
timidation had been used against him ; and that being so,
he (Mr. James) apprehended that their lordships would
be of opinion that the offence was not clearly stated. In
relation to tho question of "threats," there were numer-
ous cases collected by Mr. M'Namara. In Paley, p. 173,
it was thus laid down:—" Upon this point, also, it is ne-
cessary to state not merely the terms, but the particular acts
of the offence, to the Court," and in a great many cases it
was said, "it was not enough to state the offence in the
terms of the statute, but that you must set out the overt
acts, for the benefit of the Court, and it must be clearly
stated that it was a threat of intimidation to the person,"
In this case the conviction left it quite uncertain as to
whom the alleged threats were made. These were the
grounds upon which he ventured to submit that this con-
viction could not be maintained, and to hope that the Court
would grant the rule.
Application refused.
The learned gentleman intends to renew his application
in the Court of Exchequer.