The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-29 00:00:00

COMPANY,

The further hearing of this appeal motion was resumed
this morning.

Mr. Daniel, Q.C., was heard in reply.
At the conclusion of the arguments the Lords Justices
consulted together, and Lord Justice Knight Bruce an-
nounced that judgment would be given on the 19th of
February.

ROLLS' COURT.
(Before Sir John Romilly.)
lUDGMENT-PRETTY V. SCILLY.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—This is a
question which arises on the construction of the act of Par-
liament, and a dispute is raised on the question of title. The
bill is filed for specific performance of the act, .and to have
the usual declarations made. It appears that the certificate
complained of applies to the minerals under the lands al-
loted. The certificate furnishes a good title t? all the allot-
ments, except as to the mines and minerals of the allotment
to the lord of the manor, to which, it is said, a good title is
not given. The question is raised on the construction of
the 58th section of the Enclosure Act, 45 Geo. 111., cap. 9,
an act for enclosiog the lands, meadows, and marshes
of Great Campton, in the county of Dorset.
His Honour observed that the general rule in the con-
struction of public statutes was that the special clause
ruled the general clause, and looking to the 28th, 29th, and
58th clauses of the Act, he was satisfied that the certificate
of the chief clerk, as to the allotment of one-sixteenth part
of the land to the Lord of the Manor, gave him a good title
not only to the lands, but also to the mines and minerals
under the lands. It could not be intended to give him only
a superficial interest in the surface soil. His Honour
declared that the certificate of the chief clerk, giving the
Lord of the Manor that preference—the preference to the
mines and minerals under his allotted lands—must be con-
firmed.

CARTER V. SEERIGHT.
This case again stands over for judgment.

CITY SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)
TEETH.-A PAINFUL TRIAL.-ALBERT V. YULY.
Mr. Lewis appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Green for
the defendant.

The action was brought to recover ZS 10s. for a set of
teeth supplied to defendant. It appeared that plaintiff is a
surgeon-dentist, and that he was employed by defendant to
make him a set of teeth. Having done so, he took them
to defendant's house, and tried them on, when they were
pronounced a misfit. They were taken away, and again
tried and left, and defendant was told to persevere—(laugh-
ter)—but defendant had no patience, and they were again
returned, plaintiff promising to make a fresh set. Upon
their being taken home, plaintiff promised to try them ;
but when plaintiff called to see how they answered, defend-
ant said it was no use trying, for they hurt him so much
that he could not possibly keep them in his mouth. He
said to plaintiff, " You have taken a great deal of trouble
in this matter, here is 30s. for you." To this plaintiff re
plied, "Ten times that would not pay me. You had better
persevere--(laughter)—and I expect to be paid." Defend-
ant said, "Oh I that is absurd. I shall not keep the teeth,
but here are two pounds for your trouble." Plaintiff took
the £2, but only on account, and took the teeth away with
him. He sent themback a day or two afterwards, but they
were returned. He thought defendant should have given
them a fair trial. He was a very irritable man. (Laughter.)
His Honour—Well, Mr. Lewis, what can we do ? I
don't see how you can expect the poor man to persevere in
spite of his teeth. (Laughter.)

Mr. Lewis—lie could not expect the teeth to be easy the
first day. He has not given them a fair trial.
Witnesses were called, and one, a surgeon-dentist, said
that, looking at the model of defendant's mouth (produced)
he considered it would be quite a month before the teeth
would be easy.

His Honour—And would he have to persevere the whole
month ?
Witness—Yes.

His Honour—l should say that would be a painful trial,
:Laughter.)

For the defence it was urged that defendant was not
bound to keep tile teeth if they did not suit him, and a
Miss Lewis was called, who stated that defendant suffered
very much from sthe teeth. In her experience the teeth
should be easy the first day.
Mr. Lewis—How do you know ?
Witness—l have seen many teeth fitted.
Mr. Lewis—Oh 1 that's nothing. Now, don't be offended,
pray have you worn false teeth ? (Laughter.)
His Honour—Oh f fie, Mr. Lewis. Now, come, don't
you think that is rather too pointed ?
• Witness—(laughing, and displaying a singularly regular
white set)—Never, sir. (Laughter.)
Mr. Lewis—Then I won't take your evidence.
His Honour—What can we do I Now come, Mr. Lewis,
you are a clever fellow, how will you put this ?
Mr. Lewis—l contend that he has not given the teeth a
fair trial. If a tailor sends you homo a suit of clothes,
ordered, and they don't fit, it does not follow that you are
not bound to keep them. If they don't fit he alters them.
His Honour—l don't see that, Suppose the trousers
were the only ones you had, and they didn't fit, that would
carry out the old saying--" Lying in bed while your
breeches are mended." (Roars of laughter.)
Miss Lewis—The teeth rocked in Mr. Yuly's mouth, and
made him throw up his food.

His Honour—Well, after that—why Mr. Lewis will
throw up his case. (Roars of laughter.)
Mr. Lewis—No, I won't.

His Honour—Then we must nonsuit you.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(TIIIS DAY.)

BOW-STREET.

DESERTING FROM THE POLICE FORCE.—John Joseph
Duigan, a smart-looking young fellow, lately a sergeant in
the E division of police, was placed at the bar charged with
withdrawing from the force without notice or leave in writ-
ing, and also with neglect of duty.
_. .

The prisoner was yesterday indicted a t the Middlesex
Sessions for stealing a silver watch and gold chain, a piece
of cloth, three rings, and the sum of £47 14s. 7d., the pro-
perty and money of Edward Wilkins, but a difficulty having
arisen he was discharged. The facts adduced in evidence
against him on this occasion were as follows::—The prisoner
was a police-sergeant in the E division of police, and
acted as divisional clerk at the station in George-street,
St. Giles's. The prosecutor was a police-constable in the
same division, and his wife was employed at the station just
mentioned as cook to the unmarried constables who lodged
there. The prisoner and Mrs. Wilkins eloped on the 29th
of December, and on the 20th of Janury, in consequence of
a telegraphic despatch forwarded to LiVerpool by Mr.
O'Brien, the superintendent of the prisoner's division, who
had received private information, Scott, a Liverpool detec-
tive, went on board a ship called the Switzerland, bound for
America, and there ho found the fugitives passing under the
name of Wells, and occupying one berth as man and wife.
The things mentioned in the indictment were found in the
prisoner's possession, and also some money, part, no doubt,
of a sum of £47 14s. 7d., which the woman had withdrawn,
just previous to her flight, from the savings bank in Mon-
tague-street, Bloomsbury, where it had been deposited in
her own name. They had paid £l5 10s. for their passage
to Now York. When the adultress found she was detected,
she threw her arms round her paramour's neck, kissed him,
and said, " Never mind, Jack, we'll be together again yet;
the tailor's (alluding to her husband, who had been a tailor
before he entered the force) no use." Inspector Pethers, E,
proceeded to Liverpool and brought them back to London,
and the prisoner was charged with feloniously appropriat-
ing the prosecutor's property. After the evidence for
the prosecution closed the assistant judge asked the learned
counsel who conducted the prosecution whether ho could
point out anything in the evidence upon which he could
leave it to the jury whether the prisoner had been guilty of
the felony in the county of Middlesex. There was no doubt
ample evidence upon which a Liverpool jury could act, for
at Liverpool the prisoner was found in actual possession of
the property, but there was not the least proof either of the
adultery, which no doubt had taken place at Liverpool,
having first occurred in Middlesex, or that within the juris-
diction of the county the prisoner possessed himself of these
articles or the money. The point raised by the learned
judge could not be met, as the prisoner was ordered to be
discharged.
The evidence offered against the prisoner this morning
was given by Superintendent O'Brien. He stated the pri-
soner was what was called a sergeant-clerk. On the 29th
of December he was reported absent without leave, and
nothing more was heard of him until he was taken into
custody for stealing the rings and watches. He was posi-
tive the prisoner never gave notice of his intention to quit
the force, and he also know he had not received written
leave to do so.

Mr. Lewis, jun., who appeared for the prisoner, said
there was no doubt the offence committed by ;his client
came within the 15th section of the Metropolitan Police
Act, which authorised a magistrate to inflict a penalty of £5
or a month's imprisonment, for quitting the force without
notice ; but he hoped that, as the prisoner had been con-
fined for some days, and had lost his situation, the magis-
trate would remit the penalty.

Mr. Henry—lf I take that view of the case, the prisoner
is still liable to be tried for the offence committed in Lan-
cashire, as the judge was of opinion that there was nothing
to show that the prisoner possessed himself of the prosecu-
tor's things in Middlesex. Do the commissioners intend
to indict him at Liverpool ? _

Inspector O'Brien—l cannot say, your worship, I