The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-31 00:00:00

SAMUEL MARTIN V. HULLS.

This was a rule obtainedbfMr. Griffiths, calling
upon a Mr. Padmore, the plaintiff's attorney, to
show cause why ho should not answer the matters
in the affidavits, and pay the costs of an appiication
and order for taxation, and of this application.
The defendant was sued upon a bill of exchange
for £9 35., but the writ never was served. Mr.
Padmore claimed £2 14s, for costs, which the de-
fendant paid, declaring his intention of having the
costs taxed. Mr. Baron Bramwell, upon applica-
tion, made the usual order for taxation, and Mr.
Padmore under the order delivered a bill for £1 9s.
6d. ; this was only reduced by-3s. 6d., and which
sum being less than one-sixth of the bill, defendant
was not entitled to the costs of taxation. 6,
Mr. Huddleston, in showing cause againtliathe
rule, contended that Mr. Padmore had a riglitqo
send in his bill as he had done, and, as the defendant
had not succeeded in striking off one-sixth of it,
Mr. Padmore was not liable for the costs of the
taxation. •

Mr. Griffiths was heard in support of the rule.
The Court, in giving judgment, said that the rule
In the first case must be made absolute. With regard
to the present case, the rule would be absolute, ex-
cept as to that part which called upon the plaintiff's
attorney to answer The matter in the affidavits.

Their Lordships severally commented in very
strong language upon the conduct pursued by Mr.
Padmore, saying that he was bound to have deli-
vered his bill for the amount he had received, and
that delivering his bill for the lesser amount was a
mere trick to evade the order made by Baron
Bramwell, and as this was Mr. Padmore's first
offence, the Court would only visit upon him the
costs of the taxation and the motion, but in all
future cases brought under their notice, where
attorneys had knowingly endorsed their writs for a
larger sum than they were entitled to receive, the
Court would strike them off the rolls.

COURT. FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF
CROWN CASES RESERVED, JAN. 29.
(Present—Lord Campbell, Barons Martin and
Watson, and Justices Crowder and Willes.)
THE QUEEN V. BERRY.
The prisoner was indicted for perjury under an
order of affiliation. The points reserved were,
that the summons was issued without an infor-
mation being given on oath, and therefore there
was no jurisdiction in the magistrates to
hear the case ; and, further, that one of the allega-
tions, that the prisoner had sworn he had not paid
any money towards the maintenance of the child
within 12 months next after its birth was not ma-
terial. The case was argued last Saturday, and
stood over for judgment.
Lord Campbell delivered the judgment of the
Court (except that of Baron Martin). As to the
second question, of materiality, the Court had no
doubt. As to the second point, the omission of the
oath previous to the summons being issued was not
objected to at the time, and was not absolutely ne-
cessary, although the Court thought it would be
better for the party to be examined on oath before
the summons issued. The conviction would there-
fore be-affirmed.

Baron Martin dissented—Conviction affirmed.
THE QUEEN V. SKEENE AND FREEMAN.
This case was argued last Saturday, the great
question being whether a disclosure made in the
Court of Bankruptcy after evidence to the same
effect had been previously given in a police-court

came within the statute of 5 and 6 Vic., c. 39, which
declared that parties making such disclosure should
not be liable to be convicted of an offence under that
disclosure.

Mr. Ballantine having then been heard on behalf
of Skeene, and Mr. Giffard on the part of Freeman
the learned judges *ook time to consider the question.
To-day judgment was to have been given.
Lord Campbell said the judges wished more time
to consider the question, and therefore judgment
would be given on Saturday next at 3 o'clock.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Jan. 29.

(Before the Assistant-Judge and a Bench of Magis

trates.)
Jeremiah Donovan, 48, and James Weeks, 16,
were indicted for stealing a cashbox, containing £92
in gold, £l6 in silver, I 0 U's representing £5O, a
silver medal, commemorative of the passing of the
Reform Bill, some foreign coins, &c., the property
and money of William Ricketts, the master and
employer of the prisoner Weeks.

Was pleaded guilty.
Mr. Metcalf, instructed by Mr. Beard, prosecuted.
Mr. Ribton defended Donovan.
The prosecutor was a tea dealer, Roadside,
Whitechapel ; and the younger prisoner stole the
cash-box and absconded. He was taken by police
constable Coppin, 579 K, at Plymouth ; and he
then made a statement to the effect that he gave
the box to a man, who took it to a hole in a vacant
piece of ground near Bonner's-fields, and broke it
open. He had the greater part of the money, which
he spent at Bristol; he bought a horse for £l9, a
saddle and bridle for £4105.. he lost £l3 in tossing
with a publican, and then sold the horse and saddle
and bridle for £4 10s. which he had given for the
latter. Weeks was admitted evidence against
Donovan, whom he swore was the man he gave the
box to ; and another witness deposed to seeing
Donovan in the hole where Weeks said the box
was opened, and where subsequently the box was
found.

Mr. Ribton addressed the jury at considerable
length upon the points in the evidence, and after
the learned judge had summed up, the jury retired,
and after considering for four hours, they came
into court, and asked the learned judge to read over
some portion of the evidence, which having been
done,

The foreman of the jury said he was opposed to
his brother jurymen, who disbelieved the boy's
evidence.

The Assistant-Judge having explained the evi-
dence, the boy was called, and some further ques-
tions were put to him, and his employer was also
questioned as to his previous character, who stated
that up to the present time he had always found
him perfectly truthful, and had placed the greatest
reliance upon him.

A Juror said he had not partaken of any food
that day, having come to the court without his
breakfast, and wished to know if he could have
some refreshment.

The Assistant-Judge said he could not comply
with his request, as it had been the law of this
country for 800 years to the contrary.
Another juror said it was very hard that they
should all be locked up for one man.
The Assistant-Judge ordered the jury again to
retire, and said he would come again at ten o'clock
to see if they were agreed ipon their verdict.
The jury at half-past five were again locked up.
At twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock the jury
were directed to be brought into court.
The Deputy-Clerk of the Peace inquired if they
were agreed upon their verdict. The foreman said
they were not, nor was there any probability of
their being so. They had had a storm, there was
now a calm, for they were all about going to sleep
for the night.
The Assistant-Judge—Are you unanimous in
opinion that you will never agree ?
Several jurors—We are.
The Assistant-Judge inquired if there was any
point upon which they had formed a misconception,
or imperfect conception, for if there was he should
be happy to explain it.
The Foreman—There are eleven on one side and
one on the other, and the grounds ;of the objection
are

The Assistant-Judge—l would rather not hear
them, un less it is a point which I can clear away
by referring to the evidence.
A Juror—We disbelieve the evidence of an
accomplice.
The Assistant-Judge said, on the material points
of the boy's evidence no cross-examination had
taken place on the part of the learned counsel for
the prisoner, and there had been no imputation
whatever on the character of the boy up to the
time he had been in his employer's service. Having
committed this offence, he came forward and stated
all he knew about it. He had never committed any
other crime, and as soon as he was caught he told
the whole story as far as he was concerned.
After some further discussion, the foreman said
he did not think there was any probability of their
agreeing, and that if they went back to their room
he did not think that it would forward the ends of
justice.
The Assistant-Judge said, if the following day
were not Sunday, he should have no difficulty in
the case, for reasons which the jury might possibly
conceive for themselves.

The Foreman said that several of the jury were
tradesmen, and had been to market early, and keep-
ing them all night might be attended with dan-
gerous consequences.
The Assistant-Judge said they had better again
retire, and he would wait a short time to see what
could be done.

The jury, at ten minutes to eleven o'clock, again
retired to their room. At a quarter-past eleven
o'clock the jury were sent for, and a juryman com-
plaining that he, suffered severely from want of
food,
Mr. John James, a medical man, was called to
examine him, and having done so he said he found
the pulse very low, and if locked up all night with-
out food or stimulants he believed serious results
would ensue. He was unable to continue to per-
form the functions of a juryman on account of ex-
haustion arising from the want of food.
The Assistant-Judge : Are you still unanimous
that you will not agree ?
The foreman—We get ruder every time we re-
tire. We will not agree ?
Two other jurors were then examined by the
medical man, and he repeated that they were both
unfit to be confined for any very lengthened period
without /food.
The Assistant• Judge, on the evidence before him,
said he could not safely keep the jury longer toge-
ther, and_therefore he ordered the jury to be dis-
charged.
The Court rose shortly before twelve o'clock.