The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-18 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before the
Lord Chief Baron and a Common Jury.)
PEARL V. OASTLER AND ANOTHER.

Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Parry, and
Mr, T. Atkinson were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr.
Edwin James, Q C., and Mr. Prentice appeared for
the defendants.

The plaintiff is a saddler and horse milliner,
carrying on his business at Friendly-place, Old
Kent-road, and the defendants, Comfier and Palmer,
are the well known army contracters, trading under
the name of Alex. Ross and Co. The action was
brought against Oastler and Palmer, and Tomlins,
as their foreman, for illegally and without any pro-
bable cause searching the plaintiff's premises for
stolen goods.
It appeared from the plaintiff's evidence and that
of his wife and servant; that two policemen in plain
clothes called on the 28th of March last, and, after
giving their names and saying that they were con-
stables, went on to say that a quantity of leather
had recently been stolen, and asked permission to
examine the premises, which was at once granted,
and after a careful examination by the officers they
went away, saying that they were satisfied that no
portion of the stolen property was upon the pre-
mises. On the following morning at 11 o'clock
they returned, accompanied by Tomlins, who repre-
sented himself to be foreman to Oastler and Palmer,
and asked permission to make another search. The
plaintiff declined, alleging that he had been suffi-
ciently inconvenienced by what had occurred on
the previous evening, and that they must produce
a search warrant before he should admit them.
However, without saying any more, the three per-
sons entered the house, and remained there about
three hours searching every room in it, but found
no part of the stolen property. The plaintiff com_
plained that he had been seriously injured iu his
business by the publicity the transaction had
acquired, and that some of his goods in trade had
been injured during the search.
Mr. Oastler, for the defence, stated that he never
had given authority to any person to search the
plaintiff's premises, neither was he aware that such
a thing had been done until he received a letter
from the plaintiff's attorney, communicating that
fact among other things ; that the officers who
made the search had been employed by the firm in
a case where two persons named Crowder and Wil-
son were taken into custody, and convicted of
stealing or receiving leather. . _

Mr. Palmer was next called, and swore that Mr.
Oastler knew nothing of the affair, as he was out
of town at the time, and that he personally gave
no authority to the police to search.
Tomlins, the foreman, said that Mr. Palmer told
him to go and see if there was any property that
belonged to the firm, and that he went with the
policeman to the plaintiff's and saw him, the police-
man telling the plaintiff who the witness was, and
that the plaintiff led the way upstairs and sorted
out some pieces of leather which the witness swore
belonged to the defendants. One of the officers
was turning over some things when the plaintiff
came up and asked him not to damage them in
doing so. Some pieces which he recognised the
plaintiff said he had had for four years, when the
witness replied that that could not be so, as the
pattern from which they were eat had not been
from India for so long a time, the contract not'
being made for them till April, 1858. He touched
nothing but what was banded to him, and they
were there only three quarters of an hour together.
The plaintiff made an offer to them to search the
bedrooms, which was declined. The officers had
seine of the pivees of leather in a handkerchief, and
said that if they took them away the witness must
give the plaintiff into custody, which he declined
to do.

Both the officers were called, one of them saying
upon cross-examination that Palmer told Tomlins
to •go with them to assist in searching the plain-
tiff's house.

After his lordship had very carefully summed
up the facts, the jury found a verdict against two
of the defendants only—viz., Palmer and Tomlins
—Damages, £75.

The case occupied the whole day.

DIVORCE COURT.

(Before the Judge Ordinary, Mr. Justice Willes,
and Mr. Baron Chat/nen.)
BETAN (FALSELY CALLED 11I'MAIION) V. M'MAHON.
This was a petition by Margaret Lea Bevan for
a declaration of the nullity of her marriage with
James M'Mahon, on the ground that the licence
under which the marriage was solemnised had been
obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation.
The Judge Ordinary said the Court had directed
the question to be argued, not because they enter-
tained any serious doubt upon it, but because of
its'very grave nature and of its importance to one
at least of the parties interested. Having now had
the benefit of a very able argument on both sides,
they were satisfied that their first view was cor-
rect, and that they were bound to hold the mar-
riage good. In this particular instancb their
decision must, he was afraid, inflict a good deal of
sorrow and misery upon the petitioner, but a deci-
sion the other way might have been still more
painful to a person in her position if the point had
been raised in another manner, for a man after
marriage under these circumstances, followed by
cohabitation and the birth of children, might have
called upon the Court to annul that marriage, to
reduce the woman at a late period of life to the
position of a mistress, and to bastardise the chil-
dren. If, therefore, they were to be governed by
considerations of public policy they would be
inclined to uphold the marriage ; but thO ques-
tion must be decided upon the terms of the
statute of George IV. In that statute a great
distinction was wade between banns and 1i-

cences. The second section directed with respect
to banns that notice was to be given to the
minister at a certain time before the publication of
the true Christian names and surnames, and of the
places of residence, &c., of the parties, and by
another clause marriages without " due publica-
tion," which had been held to include publica-
tion of the true Christian names and surnames,
were to be null and void. Something more
was required beyond the mere names,—
namely, the places of abode and the length of time
in which the parties had dwelt in the parish, but a
subsequent section enacted that misdescription in
these matters should not be a ground of nullity.
Then the 10th section as to licenses provided that
no licenses were to be granted except in certain
cases, and the only section relating to nullity, the
22d, said, "If any persons shall knowingly and
wilfully intermarry, without due publication of
banns or:license from a person or persons having
authority to grant the same first had and obtained,
the marriage of such persons shall be null and void
to all intents and purposes." In " Dormer v. Wil-
liams" (1 Curt., 70), the question was whether the
license was granted by a person having authority
to grant the same. No question of that sort arose
in this case. The marriage was solemnised at a
place within the jurisdiction of the person who
granted the license, and who had authority to grant
it. He had an affidavit before him containing
statements as to matters with respect to which he
was authorised by statute to require a statement.
Was the marriage vitiated by reason of misstate-
ments in that affidavit ? He found no authority
for that proposition, but, on the contrary, many
dicta in a long series of cases denying it strongly,
and pointing out the difference in that respect
between banns and licenses. It came at last to the
question, as Mr. Brandt had put it with great
force, whether or not this was a license. From the
time of Lord Stowell downwards there were cases
in which a partial departure from the true name,
even in the publication of banns, had been held in
the abseuce of fraud not to annul the marriage.
These de,lisions showed that the name so
altered represented the persons. Did not the
name Margailet Bevan in this case represent
the lady ? WEzs not the license granted for
her ? Did she nal': authorise M'Mahon to get
it for her under that description ? Had she not
contracted with him to marry him ? The
license had tken granted by a person who had
authority to grant it, although one of the lady's
names was suppressed in order that the surrogate
might not suspect who she was ; yet, there being no
pretence for saying that it was obtained for any
other person and transferred to her, and there being►
' authority for saving that such an altered name
might represent her, she having authorised M‘Mahon
to obtain the license, and he having accordingly
obtained it, the court could not say that the mar-
riage solemnised under it wag null.

The other learned judges concurred.
The prayer for a declaration of nullity waa ac-
cordingly rejected.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Feb. 16.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Mr. Charles Pearson, the
City solicitor, attended on Saturday before Mr.
Alderman Hale, the presiding magistrate, accom-
panied by Dr. Letheby, the medical officer for
Health for the City of London, in order to apply for
an order for the destruction of the carcass of a
calf that had been seized by one of the inspectors of
slaughter-houses in the Uty—a slaughter-house
belonging to a Mr. Nathaniel Nathan, a butcher, in
Aldgate-market.
Mr. Pearson said that the Commissioners of
Sewers had thought fit, in their official capacity, to
direct this proceeding to be taken in order to endea-
vour to put a stop to a practice which unhappily
prevailed to a considerable extent, of selling dis-
eased meat, and especially to the poorer classes,
whereby their health was injured and great mischief
was done. In the present case it would seem that
in consequence of private information that was
received by Mr. Newman, one of the 'inspectors for
the City, he went to a retired slaughter-house at the
back of Mr. Nathan's premises, in Aldgate.naarket,
and he there found hanging up the carcass of a calf,
dressed, and apparently ready to be exposed for
sale. He should prove that this calf had not come
naturally into the world, and that it was quite unfit
for human food, and upon these facts he should ask
for an order for the destruction of the carcass.
Mr. Newman, the inspector, was then examined,
and he stated that in consequence of some informa-
tion he received he felt it his duty to visit the
slaughter-houses belonging to Mr. Nathan, in Ald-
gate-market. There were four places of this de-
scription behind his shop, and in the farthest from
the front of the premises he found the carcass of a
calf hanging up, and apparently as if intended to
be exposed for sale.

The- body of the animal had been previously car-
ried into the court. It presented evident appear-
ances of having been prematurely brought into the
world, and was evidently most unfit for human food.
Mr. Newman went on to say that in his opinion
the animal had never breathed, and that it had not
been born naturally, and was not within three
weeks or a month of arriving at maturity. He
added that in his opinion it was unfit for human
food, and he therefore seized it, and gave notice to
the proprietor of the slaughter-house.
In answer to a question from the worthy alderman
Mr. Newman said he believed Mr. Nathan himself
was ill in bed, and his business was managed
by one of his relations. Mr. Nathan, however, was
the registered owner of the slaughter house in
which he discovered the carcass of the animal.
Alderman Hale inquired whether any one was
present on behalf of Mr. Nathan ?

- A young man dressed in a butcher's frock came
forward and said that Mr. Nathan was ill in bed
and knew nothing at all about the occurrence, and
the fact was that some stranger had improperly ob-
tained access to the slaughter house and dressed the
calf there, but Mr. Nathan knew nothing about it,
and he had no intention of exposing it for sale.
Dr. Letheby was then called, and he stated that
he had examined the carcass that had been produced,
and it was entirely unfit for human food. The hoofs
were not entirely formed, and the animal had not
arrived at the full period of gestation, and in his
opinion it must either have been a dropped calf or
else taken from a dead animal.

Mr. C. Pearson then said that upon this evidence
he should ask the Court to make an order for the
destruction of the carcass, and he at the same time
said that he was requested by the Commissioners of
Sewers to state publicly that they were determined
to prosecute in every similar case. Under the
Nuisances Removal Act any registered owner of a
sl.aughter house who had such a carcass in his pos-
session was liable to a penalty of £lO, and it was
possible that the commissioners might still take
proceedings against Mr. Nathan under that act.
Inquiry would, however, be made into the truth of
the statement that was made in his behalf, and he
should communicate with the Commissioners of
Sewers and receive their instructions upon the
subject.
Alderman Halo at once directed the order to be
made, and at the same time observed that the pro-
ceeding was a very proper one, and that it was not
to be borne that persons should endanger the health
of the poor by selling such a disgusting article as
that which had been produced for the purposes of
human food.

Charles Hansot, a well dressed young man, wear-
ing a beard and moustache, was brought before
Alderman Conder in the course of the day, charged
with attempting to steal £6O in bank notes.
Mr. E. T. Stringer, clerk to Messrs. Harman and
Keen, stockbrokers, of Warn ford. court, deposed
that on Saturday afternoon about 2 o'clock ho went
to Barclay's bank in Lombard-street for the purpose
of paying in some money and receiving cash for a
cheque. The clerk paid him £6O in bank notes and
he placed them in his trousers pocket, and he was
then about to count the gold and silver that formed
the remainder of the cheque, and while so engaged
he felt a hand in the pocket in which he had placed
the bank notes. He immediately seized the person
by the wrist, who turned out to be the prisoner, and
asked him what he meant by putting his hand in
his pocket, to which he replied that the witness
must be labouring under a mistake. He held him
fast, however, until a policeman came up, and he
gave him in charge.
Alderman Conder asked the prisoner whether he
wished to put any questions to the witness ?
The prisoner said he should like to know whether
he had lost any money ?
Mr. Stringer said he had not ; and in answer to
another question put by the prisoner, he
.stated
that there was a crowd of persons standing about
him at the time the affair happened.
George Barfield, a city policeman, said he was
sent for to Messrs. Barclay's bank, and the prose-
cutor gave the prisoner into custody fox attempting
to pick his pocket, and when he did so, prisoner
said " I think you are labouring under a mistake."
He took the prisoner to the police station, and upon
searching him he found a bill case, which was quite
empty, and a portemonnaie in which there were
£lB 10s. in gold and 2s. Bd. in silver, and also a
silver hunting watch and a pen knife. The pri-
soner gave his address in Longfellows-road, Mile-
end, but he said he had not had time to ascertain
whether this was a true address or not. He in-
quired of the prisoner how he came to be in the
bank, and he said that he went there to do some
business, he wanted to get a cheque upon New York.
Mr. Stringer stated that when the prisoner was
in the bank ho had the bill ease in his hand, no

ndloeurbkt. to create the belief thr At he was a banker's
to prisoner whether he
.
wished
dertmo asnayCoanndvetrhiansg-keidn tenswer to the charge ?i
Hereplied—"l canno t se y anything."
Alderman Condor ed of the detective offi-
cers—several of whom we e present—whether they
knew anything of the priA finer, and none of them,
it:appeared, had any know\ ledge of him.
partridge, the gaoler, sai‘ i he knew the prisoner
had bs.en to this Court Mot 0, and he believed that
he was then charged with a s. imilar attempt at rob-
bery to the present at the City Bank.
Aldermao Conder remande,l the prisoner in
order that thke necessary inquirieli might be made
respecting hint.

CLERKENIVELL.—ATTEMY TED MURDER OF
A PUBLICAN BY 1118 BARMAN'.--William Swan,
aged 22, described un the charg e sheet as a barman,
was placed at the bar 136 fore A Ir. Barker, charged
with feloniously wounding his master, Mr. James
Leask, the landlord of the ,Pitt's Head public-house,
1, Old street, St. Luke's.
Mr. Beard attended for the prosecution.
Mr. Leask, who appeared in the witness •box with
his face enveloped in surgical bandages, and seemed.
very weak from loss of blood, said the prisoner had
been in his employ about t hree weeks, and the pre-
vious night there was a dit pute in front of the bar
with the prisoner about son w change. As the same
thing had frequently occurred before, he tapped
the prisoner on the shoulder, and asked him to step
into the bar-parlour. He gold him that he should
not require his services any longer, that he had
better pack up his things, and that, although he
had only been in the place three weeks, he would
pay him a month's wages.. The prisoner said,
" What have I done ?" and he replied, " I will tell
you when you come dawn stairs." He (witness)
then went to the bar and served some customers,
and on turning to go back to the parlour he saw
the prisoner rushing towards him with the poker
in his hand. The prisoner was in the act of making
a blow at him with the poker. He put his hands up
to guard his face, and received 3. fearful blow on the
face with. the poker, which pa xtially stunned him.
The prisoner, before witness could recover himself,
struck him another blow on the head, and then
he closed with him, and they struggled together.
The prisoner struck him again, and the blow
stunned him for a minute or t wo. When the pri-
soner first struck witness be said nothing.
The poker was here produced. It was a parlour
poker, and the blade was broken off.

Mr. Barker said the case was of so serious a
n ature that he should most certainly send him for
trial. He would remand the prisoner until Tues-
day next, for the attendance of the surgeon.
The prisoner applied that bail might be taken.
Mr. Barker fixed the bail—the prisoner in £2OO,
and two sureties in the sum of £lOO each.

COUNTRY DIAREBTS.

LEICESTER-FEB. 16.

The supply of wheat to-day was moderate, and prices as
last week, with a fair demand. White wheat, 70s to 78s
—red, 64s to 68s per 36 stove; a rather steady sale for
barley, grinding, 32s to 34s ; malting, 37s to 43s per qr.;
eats, 24s to 38s per 24 stone. Beans—old, 56s to 580,
new, 3Ss to 40s per 38 stone.

Fine flour, 50; I Seconds, i7s Thirds, 45s per 20 stone.

NORWICH-FEB. 16.

At this market to-day wheat was in moderate supply,
and last week's rates were realised for most kinds. Bar-
ley in limited supply, and prices unchanged. Flour was
is cheaper.
White wheat 65s to 67s Red wheat 56s to 62s
Malting barley....4ss to 47s I Chevalier barley 41s to 44s
Distilling do ......31s to 348 I Oats.. 268 to 303
Flour, 41s to —s Od per sack from the miller.