The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(2hts Day),

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
IN RE WARD.

This was an application to dismiss the coroner, William
Web Ward, being drunk and incapable of discharging the
duties of his office as coroner to hold an inquest on the
body of a man, aged 80, of the name of Grindley, who was
found dead in his bed at Sarvon, on the 2d January last.

Mr. Amphlet, Q.C., was heard in support of the appli-
cation.

Mr. Ward pleaded a denial of the allegation, and that
from information received it was not necessary to hold an
inquest ; that he was now put OR a salary which was not
sufficient to enable him to pay the costs of holding an
inquest; that he was benumbed with eold in travelling;
and when he arrived there he was told that it was not
necessary to hold an inquest; and, moreover, the magis-
trates did not allow coroner's fees for holding such inquests.
Mr. Daniel, Q.C., was heard for the coroner, Mr. Ward,
and complained that the form of proceedings prevented him
from traversing the ground of complaint or bringing any
but voluntary evidence before the Court. That the death
of Joseph Grindley arose from natural causes, and that there
was no necessity for holding an inquest.
The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that the evidence
proved that the coroner, Mr. Ward, misconducted himself
before the jury, and dismissed him from the office of coroner
for the county of Stafford, and ordered a new writ to pro-
ceed.

(Before the Lords Justices of Appeal.)
APPEAL.-JUDGMENT..-PICKLES V. PICKLES.

This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor
Kindersley, dismissing the plaintiff's bill, with costs.
This suit was instituted for the purpose of setting aside
an appointment, under an old agreement, that was proved
existed at the date of the execution between the appointer
and the appointeed. The plaintiff's father, T. K.
Pickles, had a power of exclusive appointment
among his children, under the will of his father.
Part of his property was held in lease by one Fox, but
Duckworth, who was trustee for his creditors, granted a
new lease to one Godling. At the time that that lease was
executed, Thomas Kingston Pickles made his will, and
appointed all his realty to his daughter, and his personalty
to his other children. A bond was to be executed, under
a penalty of £5OO, to Godling, to secure him in the event of
Pickles' death. This bill was filed to set aside the appoint-
ment, as it was made in consideration of the daughter
giving the bond.

A vast amount of evidence was entered into, but the Vice-
Chancellor held the allegations as to the appointment were
not proved, and dismissed the bill. After hearing the
arguments of counsel on both sides the Lords Justices
allowed the case to stand over a few days for arrangement
or judgment.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce and Lord Justice Turner
were decidedly of opinion that there were no grounds what-
ever for suggesting that the deed of appointment in favor
of the daughter was made on account of the bond of indem-
nity for L5OO. It was purely and entirely a voluntary
deed.

Their Lordships affirmed the decision of the Vice-Chan-
cellor, and dismissed the appeal, with costs.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)
JUDGMENT-ROSE V. BAGLEY.

The plaintiff filed his bill fora dissolution of partnership,
and the question raised was whether he was a partner or
an agent under salary.
His Honour the Master of the Rolls, in delivering judg-
ment, was of opinion that the agreement proved that the
plaintiff engaged to manage the business at a salary of
£200; and, although he might have a gratuity on the
amount of the profits, it was extraneous of the agreement.
His Honour dismissed the plaintiff's bill with costs.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Potter and a Jury.)
IMPORTANT CAUTION TO DEBTORS.-BAERSELMA.N V.

BARNES.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered, and de-
fendant, by a plea which he had put upon the record, caused
plaintiff to come to this court to prove his case.
Mr. Palmer (instructed by Mr. Metcalf) said that although
defendant had stated a defence, yet he had not thought it
wise to attend here to-day. He well knew that he owed the
money, but to gain time, probably, had defended the action.

_ •
Witnesses were called, from whose testimony this ap-
peared to be an undefended case.

The jury at once found for plaintiff, and the learned
Secondary granted a certificate for costs, which will be, to
defendant's surprise, rather heavy.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH. STREET.

ROBBERY IN AN OMNIBUS.—THE WAY THEY ARE
EFFECTED.—EIIen Reed, a smartly-dressed prostitute, and
who, when taken into custody, wore a gold watch and had
£1 7s. 10d. in her possession, was charged before Mr.
Tyrwhitt with stealing a purse containing one sovereign
and Is. 61d., the property of Mrs. Ann Pepper, a widow
lady, residing at 29, Norfolk -street, Strand.
Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, appeared
for the prisoner.

Mrs. Pepper said she got into one of the Atlas and
Waterloo Association omnibuses at the end of Devonshire-
street, Portland-place, about half-past ten the previous
night ; and when she got into the middle of Regent-street
she felt the prisoner's hand, the prisoner sitting opposite
her, touch her knee. Upon this she (Mrs. Pepper) moved
further down the omnibus, and the prisoner did the same
thing; and shortly after she saw the prisoner put her hand
under her dress, and on her putting her hand into her
pocket it went through the bottom. She at once called out
that she had been robbed, and on getting up the purse was
lying between her and the prisoner on the bottom of the
omnibus. She was positive it was the prisoner's hand, as
she had been watching her, having been formerly robbed.
She also observed that the prisoner had some small instru-
ment in her hand at the time.
In answer to the Clerk, Mrs. Pepper said that her pocket
was whole when she got into the omnibus, and that the
60. WAS loose in her pocket, and was found at the bottom
of the omnibus.

In cross-examination by Mr. Lewis, the prosecutrix said
the prisoner at first said she was going to Brompton, but
on her saying that she had been robbed, she said she wanted
to get out, but she prevented her. There were several others
in the omnibus, but no one near her (prosecutra).
Mrs. Harriet Blake, of the Colonnade, Old Kent Toad,
said that as soon as the constable came in sight the prisoner
stood up, and she (witness) felt the cushion on which she
was sitting rise up, and saw the prisoner place something
under it.

Inspector Holden here handed the magistrate a sharp-
pointed knife, which Lindsay, A 305, proved finding under
the cushion, after the prosecutrix had told him that she had
had her pocket picked.
Mr. Lewis said the knife was an ordinary fruit knife.
Mr. Holden said it had a remarkably sharp point.
Mr. Lewis having addressed the Magistrate on prisoner's
behalf,
Mr. Tyrwhitt said ho had no doubt the prisoner was a
regular omnibus thief, her victims being females, and he
should commit her for three months, with hard labour.

CHARGE OF ATTEMPTING TO POISON
BY STRYCHNINE, NEAR SHEFFIELD.

At the Sheffield Town Hall, yesterday, James
Windle, a labourer living at the village of Darnall,
about three miles from Sheffield, was charged with
attempting to poison Mrs. Sarah Liversidge, a
widow, residing at the same place. The case for the
prosecution was that the prisoner and his wife went
to lodge with the prosecutrix rather more than a
year ago, and that the wife died in the following
August. About a month after that the prisoner
made proposals to pay his addresses to Mrs. Liver-
sidge, but she rejected his advances. He, however,
continued to press his suit, but without any en-
couragement; and on one occasion he said to the
prosecutrix that, if she would not have him, she
should have no one else, for he would be the end of
her. Shortly before Easter, as he persisted in his
attentions, Mrs. Liversidge gave him notice to
leave. Ho went to live at another house in
the same yard, and occasionally called to
see the prosecutrix. One night he went into her
house and used abusive language, saying that if he
had a gun he would blow her brains out. On another
occasion, when asked what he had called for,
he answered that it was to torment the prosecu-
trix; whereupon Mrs. Liversidge ordered him never
to enter the house again. It was the custom of
the prosecutrix to send every night to a neighbour-
ing public house, kept by her sister-in-law, for a
gill of ale for her supper, and on Monday evening,
the 27th of May, she despatched her son, a boy
about nine years of age, on this errand. He saw
the prisoner as he went, and as he returned the
prisoner met him and asked some trivial question.
Whilst Windle was talking, the boy saw him put
something into the ale, and charged him with it.
The prisoner denied that he had done so, but
the boy saw a substance floating on the sur-
face, and took it off with his pinafore. On
reaching home the boy told his mother what had
occurred, whereupon she poured the liquor down
the sink, and sent for another gill, but not in the
same pot. On examining the first pot, Mrs. Liver-
sidge saw something green on the handle, and she
also noticed a similar substance on her son's hand.
These she wrapped in paper and laid on one side.
Afterwards, noticing that the boy's pinafore was
marked with the same green substance, some of this
was also preserved. Mrs. Liversidge's father on
becoming acquainted with the facts, communicated
with Mr. Jackson, chief constable, who advised that
the substances should be analysed. They were
accordingly handed over to Dr. Bingley,,analytical
chemist, for this purpose. Dr. Bing•!ey s evidence
was not taken on this occasion, but it was under-
stood to be his opinion that the substance was
strychnine.—The prisoner was remanded to Friday,
when Dr. Bingley's and other evidence will be
'taken. •