The Sun.
London, England, 1861-10-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 2, 1861.

LAW .INTBLLIGEICE—(This Day.)

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Comnissicner Kerr.)

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

CHILDREN THROWING STONESAND PARENTS' LIABILITY

IMPORTANT DECISION.-,DYER V. JENNINGS.
This was an action to recover 0, small sum of money for
a broken window.
His Honour—Did defendant break the window ?
Plaintiff—His child did.
His Honour—How do you make him liable for his child?
Plaintiff—His negligence. His child was throwing
stones.

His Honour—How do you allow that that was do•
fendant's negligence ?
Plaintiff—His child was throwing stones in the street.
His Honour—lt would be a very hard case to make de•
fondant liable for that.
Plaintiff—The nurse was with the child.

His Honour—Then, sue the nurse.
Plaintiff—l always understood the parents were liable.
His Honour—Nothing of the kind. You should give
the child a clout on the head. The parent is not liable.
You will be nonsuited.

HAS A SERVANT POWER TO BIND HIS EMPLOYER.
DUFFIELD V. BOWES.

This was an action to recover £4 ss. for repairs, &c., to a
dog-cart; defendant having paid £2 into court.
Mr. Reed called the plaintiff, who said that defendant
ordered some repairs to the extent of £2. Subsequently
defendant agreed to take some harness for 10s. After this
it was pointed out that certain parts of the trap looked very
shabby, and defendant's man said they could be done.
Mr. Pook, for defendant, said that this was clearly a case
in which a servant had acted Nfithout any authority from
his master. Defendant was in court, and would prove that
no order was given for extra work by his authority.
Mr. Richardson was then called, and said he was a
partner in the firm of Henri's Patent Cattle Feed Company,
and he only ordered repairs to the extent of £2 and the har-
ness 10s.

Plaintiff then said that the extra was partly fora cushion
which defendant still had.
His Honour—Then your action is in trover. It is clear
in this case you have not shown any authority for the extra
work, and I must find for defendant.
_ -

Mr. Pook applied for costs, and after hearing Mr. Reed,
an arrangement was come to.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

BOW-STREET.

A poor, miserable looking man, named Sutcliffe, was
charged with stealing a coat.

James Welsh, a crossing sweeper, said he was engaged
by the prosecutor to mind his coat in Holborn yesterday,
and after he had had it in his care a few minutes he saw
the man going round to the off side and pull the coat off the
seat and run away with it.

The prosecutor, Mr. Hassell, identified the coat as his
property.

The prisoner said he was starving, that he had a wife
and four children at home in the same state, and he took
the coat to get them a bit of bread.

Mr. Henry told the prisoner he ought to have applied to
the relieving officer in preference to stealing. He would
make some inquiry about him before he disposed of the case.
Remanded.

Mary Green was charged with begging. The prisoner
said she did it through want.

The Magistrate—Why not go to the workhouse ?
Prisoner—Because I don't like to do so.
Magistrate—You must not beg.
Prisoner—Very well ; Then I'll take your advice, and see
what workhouses are made of, but I don't promise I'll stop.
I want my relations to give me a trifle to start in business,
and I think they will do so.
Discharged.

Daniel Brown, a bricklayer's labourer, was placed at the
bar charged with stealing lead.

Police-constable Ackerill said he saw the prisoner leav-
ing a marine dealer's shop, and having some suspicion, ho
went in after and found he had disposed of some lead which.
he said he had found outside the boarding of the building
upon whiqtlie was engaged.
Mr. Ho said the lead produced was of the same de-
scription as ifiat used in the buildings he had at present ha
progress at the coroner of Maiden-lane. The prisoner had
been in his service for about eight years, and he alway. 9
believed him honest.

The prisoner pleaded guilty to stealing the lead.
The magistrate said he did not think it was an offence to
be dealt summarily with, but as it was a first offence he:
would not send the prisoner to the sessions. Under the
circumstances he should send him to the House of Correc-
tion for four months.

Till RD -..EDITIO N.