The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-02 00:00:00

THE SITN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 2, 1859.

!!

LAW INTELLIGENCE--,Tune 1.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron,
and Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Watson.)

SOLOMON V. THE LICENSED VICTUALLERS' COMPANY.

JUDGMENT.

At the sitting of the court this morning,
The Lord Chief Baron delivered judgment in this
case. It was an action tried before Mr. Baron
Martin, at Guildhall, after last Hilary Term, for
injuries done to the plaintiff's dwelling-house in
Pilgrim-street by the removal of two houses be-
longing to the defendants. The plaintiff's house
was built on a hill with a descent to the west,
another house belonged to a third person, and the
defendants were the owners of a house adjoining
the plaintiff's at the corner of the street, and
another house in the next street. All four houses
had for upwards of 30 years been out of the per-
pendicular, as might have been seen by any passer
by. In 1857 the 'lease of the defendant's houses
expired, and they then entered into a contract with
a person named Robins to pull them down and
rebuild. At the trial it had been contended by the
defendants that the plaintiff had no right to have
his house supported by theirs, and that they were
not liable for damage occasioned by the pulling
down of their own property. Mr. Baron Martin
took this view, and directed a nonsuit with leave
to the plaintiff to move. That rule had been
argued, and the court haying taken time to consider
were of opinion that the plaintiff had not acquired
the right relied on, that the direction of the learned
judge was right, and that the rule should be dis-
charged. _

Judgment accordingly.
Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall.—(Before Mr.
Baron Channel' and Common Juries.)
FIELD V. ROBEY. ,-;;;AN UNDERTAKER'S BILL.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to
recover £22, the amount of his bill. The defendant
paid £2O into court, and as to the balance denied
his liability.
Mr. George Francis was counsel for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Huddleston represented the defendant.
The plaintiff is an undertaker, of Charlotte-
street, St. George's East, and the defendant is a
sail maker. The defendant met the plaintiff in
Watney-street on the Ist of March, and told him
that his wife was dead, at the same time giving
him instructions for her funeral. The defendant
expressed his satisfaction at the manner in which
the funeral had been conducted, and desired him to
send in his bill the next morning, when he would
give him a cheque for the amount. The plaintiff
said that he smiled and told the defendant that the
funeral would cost £5O, to which the latter replied,
" I should think not half of it." The plaintiff then
said, " Well, it will be about £25."

In his cross-examination the plaintiff said he did
not publigli handbills headed, "Respect to the de-
parted," " Decency and pomp combined for £10,"
with a hearse drawn by prancing horses. He had
charged £5 for the elm shell, which was polished.
He presented the clergyman with a silk band and
gloves, and the defendant did not object, as it was
usual and respectable. He had charged half a
guinea for attending the funeral with silk fittings.
He had charged for six horses, hearse, velvet for
three hammer cloths, one hearse, and two mourning
coaches, and for ten men, including two mutes,
described in the bill as two porters, with robes and
silk fittings.
Mr. Moulsey, Mr. Adam Sprayfield, and other
undertakers, were called to prove the reasonable-
ness of the plaintiff's charges.
The defence .was that the action .was defended on
principle, as items were charged in the bill which
had not been supplied. For instance, there were
only eight men instead of ten, and the defendant
denied his conversation with the plaintiff, as sworn
to by the latter. He also said he had called at the
plaintiff's shop, and had strictly prohibited any-
thing approaching to pomp, mutes included, as he
had many bills to pay, and wished to be just before
he was generous.
Several witnesses were called to prove the charges
too high, and one of them, an undertaker named
Holley, said the practice of the trade was to charge
persons according to their condition in life.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.

POLICE INTELLIUENC'E—June 1.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Robert Kitson, keeper of
a shellfish warehouse at 6, Hart-street, Crutched-
friars, was summoned for having, by threats and
violent languages put his wife, Emma Kitson, in
fear of her life.
The defendant was a .well dressed and rather
gentlemanly looking man, but with a wandering
vacuity of eye, and a drawling, feeble sadness in
his voice, resembling a state of semi-idiotcy, or
latent insanity, the result possibly of natural brain
disease, but more likely of mental and physical
prostration, arising from a long-continued chronic
state of intoxication.
He pleaded not guilty. _ _

Mr. Lewis, who appeared in support of the sum-
mons, said the circumstances of the case were such
as to compel him to ask the Lord Mayor to call
upon the defendant to enter into heavy recognis-
ances to keep the peace towards his wife, the com-
plainant, who, by the violence of his conduct dur-
ing a long course of intoxication, went in daily fear
of her life. The prisoner for some time past had
kept three guns in his house, as well as powder and
shot, and on Friday week he went out, taking one
of these guns with him. He was away several days,
and during his absence his wife, who was superior
in social position to her husband, found it necessary,
in order to provide for the wants of the house, and
owing to the extravagance of her husband, to pledge
one of the two guns left at home. The defendant,
upon arriving at home on Friday last, in a state of
brutal intoxication, became aware of this fact, and
immediately threatened to do for his wife, throwing
a knife at her, and so conducting himself other-
wise, that she felt compelled to run out of
the house and remain away for some hours.
Upon her return she went upstairs, and the
defendant, following her there with a gun, swore
that he would shoot tier; and although the com-
plainant did not know whether the gun was really
loaded or not, she knew he had a flask cf powder
and another of shot in the house, and she feared
that he would really carry out his threats. How-
ever, she managed to get away from him then, but
feeling that there was no security for her life, the
present summons was taken out, so that the law
might become her protection against his violence.
Mrs. Emma Kitson, who wept while giving her
evidence, then corroborated in every particular the
statement made by Mr. Lewis ; adding that her
husband had never to her knowledge been sober
for a single day during the last ten months.
The Lord Mayor—Well, defendant, what have
you to say to this ?
Defendant (whiningly)—lf I've said or done
anything wrong to my wife—PnA sure I don't know
whether I have or not—l'm very sorry, and she'll
forgive me ; won't you, Emma ?
Emma wept on, and said nothing.
The Lord Mayor—Bat I can't forgive you, if she'
does. How long have you been married ?
Defendant—Twelve years, and all that time I
have never lifted my hand against her; have I,
Emma ? (No answer.) Now have I, Emma ?
Complainant faintly murmured " Yes."
Defendant—Oh, I'm sure I haven't. But I'm
very sorry for this, and I hope you'll forgive me.
The Lord Mayor—lt is quite clear that owing to
your drunken violence she goes in fear of her life,
and you must give good bail, yourself in £2OO and
two other householders in £lOO each, to keep the
peace towards her for three months ; and if you do
not find two respectable bail you will be locked up
for that period.
Defendant—How long will you give me to get
them ?

The Lord Mayor—Oh, you can send for them
now if you know any one.
Defendant—Oh, my wife will get them for me;
now won't you, Emma ? (Laughter.)
He was then removed from the bar, but while
descending the stairs to the cells below he paused a
moment to take a " last fond look," and then, with
another "Won't you, Emma," disappeared from
view.

MARYLEBONE.—EIizabeth Pring, a-pale,. dis-
tressed looking woman, 35 years of age, the wife of
a porter living in Cornelius-place, Brook-street,
Hampstead-road, was brought up from the London
University. Hospital, and placed at the bar, charged
with having attempted to destroy herself with
poison.
Police constable 307 S deposed that at eight in
the evening, while on duty in the Euston-road,he
receiced information that a woman had poisoned
herself, and en proceeding to Brook-street he found
the prisoner, who was surrounded by a crowd of
persons, lying upon the pavement. She was vomit-
ing very mueh, A chemist's assistant, of whom
she had purchased the poison, was there, and after
giving her a draught she waq, by his directions,
removed to the hospital. Witness added that a
person living in the same house as the prisoner gave
him a piece of paper, upon which was printed,
" Oxalic acid—poison."
Mr. Broughton—ls the assistant here ?
Witness—No, your worship ; but I understand
that when the prisoner made the purchase she told
him she wanted it to dean straw bonnets with.

Mr. Broughton—Did she assign to you any rea-
son for what she had done?
Witness—Shesaid it was all through her husband.
Mr. Broughton (to prisoner)—Wl}at have you to