The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-05 00:00:00

BAIL COURT, JUNE 2.

GBIFI~T i 5
AND CO. V. TAILLETON.
Sir JAMES SCAELETT stated that this was an action
brought by the plaintiffs, wine merchants, Pall-mall,
.tainst John Collingwood Tarleton, of Collingwood House,
Durham, as acceptor of a bill for 200/.

The transaction, as append by the plaintiff's evidence,
originated as follows :—The plaintiffs' clerk was one
morning called on by Mr. John Gulley, of Hare Park,
Newmarket, who had very extensive dealings with them
for wine, who presented him with a bill at twelve months
for 395/ accepted by Mr. Tarleton, observing that it had
only six days to run, being due on the 19th September,
1830. Ile told the clerk to take his bill for wine out of
it, which he did, and gave Mr. Gulley a check for the ba-
lance, allowing him also their cheek discount for prompt
payment The hill was dishonoured, and subsequently
two other bills, of which this was one, taken instead. On
his cross-examination, the witness Griffiths, a relative of
one of the firm, said he knew nothing of Mr. Gulley, hut
that he was a gentleman keeping a large establishment,
formerly at Cumberland-place, lately in the Ade ;he
had also a house at Newmarket. He had a private ac-
count for wine; had seen no paper before pass in pay-
ment. He subsequently said he had dined at Mr. Gulley's.
Mr. CAMPBELL-Did you afterwards receive an invita-
tion to shake your elbow ?—(Loud laughing.)
Mr. Griffiths, with apparent surprise—No, Sir, nothing
of the kind.

Mr. CAMPBELL, for the defendant, said this was a case
in which a character of considerable eminence was prin-
cipally concerned, though the action was ostensibly brought
by his wine-merchant. For persons who had achieved
eminence by fair means he had always entertained a pro-
portionate share of that respect entertained fur them by
the public generally. The person he alluded to as behind
the curtain in this drama was no other than John Galley,
the noted pugilist, and once the Champion of England,
whose battle with Gregson at the time was scarcely less
famous and celebrated than the battle of Waterloo itself.
When he recollected to whom he was opposed, he candidly
confessed he was apprehensive he should " be floored" by
this celebrated hero, as had been the .case with most of his
former antagonists—but, be that as it might, he was re-
solved to make " a stand-up fight" of it, and have a round
with him, in spite of the " long odds" against him.—
(Grett Laughter.) He, however, suspected he had a
point of law in his favour, which would prevent even a
Gulley " coming to time." Now this poin', to drop all
metaphor, was, that the original bill for 395/. had b, en
given for a gambling debt, being part of 12,0001. lost by
the defendant to Gulley on the Doncaster St. Leger race,
in September, 1829, which bill had been dishonoure l ;
two other bills, this for 2001., and another fur the balance
were given to the holders, Messrs. Griffith. On the first
of these bills the plaintiffs thought they might, as in-
dorsees, bring their action without being estoppel in con-
sequence of its coming out that the bill had been given
for a gaming debt. The law had, however, drawn a dis-
tinction between bills given for an usurious consideration
in the hands of indorsees, to whom no knowledge of the
fact of usury could be traced, when they received or dis-
counted such bills, and bills given for a gaming debt, and
very wisely—for otherwise, such persons as Mr. Gulley
would have no difficulty at a!1 in getting in the full
amount of such gaming bills by simply going to their
tradesmen, and desiring them to take their amounts out of
those bills, and give him a check for the balance. He
should close his case.hy stating, without prejudice to the
cause, that Mr. Tarleton was even now only desirous of a
settlement of accounts long standing between him and Mr.
Gulley ; and that he would agree to a reference of all
matters in dispute to a gentleman named even by Sir
James Searlett, provided lie did not insist on the advantage
which a verdict would give him over the defend int. Mr.
Tarleton was ready to show before the arbitrator that
there was a balance due to him by Mr. Gulley.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT only smiled.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—If Mr. Gulley will pay the
plaintiffs the amount of the bills, they, I dare say, will
have no objection to these parties making such a reference.
Mr. CRESSWELL then called " John Gulley ;" a short
pause ensued.
Mr. CAMPBELL asked if there was a stop-watch in
Court ? a time. keeper in this instance was essential.—
(Considerable laughter.)
The COURT observed it
_was never known that the
witness showed any disinclination to come up to the scratch
before.—(A laugh.)
The crier was ordered to call the witness outside the
Court in Westminster Hall. No answer was returned,
and he was subsequently called in vain on his subpoena.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT, addressing the Jury, said, " You
see, Gentlemen, my Learned Friend's fears were ground-
less, for he:has actually frightened the Champion away.".__
(Laughter.)

The Jury- found a verdict for the plaintiffs-2141. for
principal and interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

Yesterday, a miserable-looking Italian boy was brought
before Mr. lIALts, charged with begging in the streets.
Godfredi kocenti, the master of the boy, was a'so ap-
prehended, and charged with having sent him out to beg,
and Mr. HALLS directed that the boy should be admitted
to give evidence to that effect.
JoSeph Parigali (who gave evidence in the case of the
murdered Italian boy) was sworn to interpret truly. From
questions put to the boy, it appeared his name was An-
toni Platoni ; that he was only eleven years of age, and a
native of Parma. He had been but three days in this
country, having been brought over by his master, the de-
fendant, who had seve❑ boys besides himself. His master
sent him into the streets to beg, and he was obliged to
bring home all he could get. On Saturday, he brought
home 7d., and the shilling in copper found upon him was
also obtained by begging.

. - -
The defendant said he was not aware of his having com-
mited any offence, and said be would return to France it
the magistrate would let him go.
Mr. HALLS, in committing the defendant for one month
and hard labour to the House of Correction, observed, that
the system pursued by the masters of these poor friendless
Italian boys was most iniquitous, and most he put a stop
to. The magistrate ordered the boy to be placed in St.
Giles's workhouse.

Paragali said that he knew nine Italians who had no
fewer than 160 of these poor boys under their control.
They sent them into the streets to beg, while they remained
at home themselves feasting and playing cards. He knew
many of them who had amassed large bums of money in
this way, and in some instances, if the poor boys were out
of luck, they would remain in the streets all night, know-
ing that if they should return without money, they would
be severely beaten.