The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-11 00:00:00

ASSIZB INTELLIGENCE.

" SEPARATE ARTICLES.
"Art. I. The commercial relations of France
with Belgium, Vie Netherlands, and Sardinia, and
of Russia with the kingdoms of Sweden and Nor-
way, being regulated by special stipulations, which
may hereafter be renewed without said relations
being attached to the regulations existing for
foreign commerce in general, the two high con-
tracting parties, wishing to avoid any misunder-
standing or cause for discussion upon their com-
mercial relations, have agreed that the special
stipulations granted in consideration of equivalent
advantages canna t in any case be invoked in
favour of the commercial relations and of naviga-
tion sanctioned between the two high contracting
parties.
Art 11. It is also understood that the following
immunities and privileges shall not be looked upon
as infringements on the principle of reciprocity
which is the basis of the present treaty, viz. :
" On the part of France :
" 1. The immunities and bounties established in
favour of the national sea fisheries.
" 2. The privileges granted to English yachts.
" 3. The immunities granted to Spanish fisher-
men in virtue of the law of the 12th of December,
1790.
" And on the part of Russia :
" 1. The privilege enjoyed by vessels constructed
in Russia, and belonging to Russian subjects, who
for the first three years are exempt from navigation
dues.
" 2. The permission granted to the inhabitants
of the coast of the Government of Archangel-to
import free, or at a moderate duty, into the ports
of the said Government, dried or salt fish, as also
certain descriptions of furs, and to export in the
same manner corn, ropes, tar, and ravendolcc (?).
"3. The privileges of the Russo-American
Company.
" 4. The immunities granted in Russia to diffe-
rent English and Netherland companies called
yacht clubs.
" Art. 111. The present separate articles are to
have the same value as if inserted in the body of
the treaty. They will be ratified and the ratifica-
tions exchanged on the same day.
" In faith of which, &c.,
I " MOR,NY.
" GORTSCLIAKOFF.
" BROCK.
" St. Petersburg, June 14 (2), 1857."
n

SIIICIDE.—CORONER'S INQUEST.—An inquest was held
last night on the body of Mr. James Davie, aged 32,
lately resident at 4, Ranelagh-street, Pimlico, who com-
mitted suicide by hanging himself. Verdict, " Tempor-
ary insanity."
SlllClDE.—Yesterday morning an inquest was held at
the Blade Bone public-house, Church-street, Bethnal-
green-road, on the body of James Waterloo, age'
who committed suicide by hanging himself.
denburg said the deceased bad suffered
great heat of the
brain.w weather, which
lion of
"Temporary insanity "
. _. •

ou7

HOME CIRCUIT.—CROYDON, AUG. 10.
Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)
CLARK T. POTTING-EL
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to
recover the sum of 841. 135., for work done and
goods supplied by the authority of the defendant,
who pleaded that be was not
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Malcolm ap-
peared fur the plaintiff ; Mr. E. James, Q.C., and
Mr. Hawkins were connsa 1 for the defendant.
Mr. Chambers, in opening the case, said that the
plaintiff carried on the business of a house agent
and fuiniture dealer in Cambridge-street, Pimlico ;
and the defendant was Sir Frederick Pottinger.
The action was brought to recover the value of
certain furniture that had been sold by the plaintiff,
and for other business connected with his trade,
under the,e circumstances. In the commencement
of the present year a person named Russell, who,
he was instructed, he should be able to prove acted
as the agent for the defsnclant, applied to him to
hire a, house in Cambridge-street for the use of the
defendant and a lady, but he at the same time
stated that Sir Frederick did not wish to hire the
house in his own name, but in that of John Perry,
and after some negotiation he let the house, No.
165, Cambridge-street, and an agreement was
drawn up, wherein the defendant was described as
John Perry, of Lansdowne-terrace' Bath, and a
young lady, who was subsequently called Mrs.
Perry, and occasionally Lady Pottieger, took pos-
session. Some of the furniture she brought with
her was cleaned and polished, and a piano and
other articles were supplied, and the bill of the
plaintiff amounted altogether to 841. 13s. When he
sent iu his bill, Mrs. Perry asked him not to draw
the whole amount, and he accordingly made out a
bill for 44/., and the defendant called upon him
and offered to pay 201. on account, but when he
became aware there was a larger BUM due, be re-
fused to pay anything, and the plaintiff was in
consequence compelled to bring the present action.
Mr. F. Clark, the plaintiff, deposed that in April
last, Russell, whom he knew as a sort of agent,
called upon him and told him that Sir F. Pottinger
wanted to have a house in Cambridge-street, but
he did not wish his own name to appear in the
transaction, as he did not want to be liable to serve
on juries or to have his name in the rate books.
He agreed to let him have No. 165, Cambridge-
street, and a young lady came to reside there, and
under her directions he did all the work for which
the present claim was made. A short time after-
wards he saw Sir F. Pottinger in the dining-room,
and he complained of the bid that had been sent
in, and said that he would pay everything that was
reasonable, but he would not be done. Sir Frede-
rick after this called at his shop and offered to give
him 201. on account, but he then told him that his
bill was 841., and not 44/. ; and Sir Frederick then
said he would not pay anything, and that he was
going abroad, and be might get his money where
he could. Among the articles he supplied to the
house was a piano, which be had purchased for
121. 10s., and be had it polished and tuned and
charged 201. for it. He received a note in the
handwriting of the defendant, requesting him to
take this piano back.
Cross-examined—Was sure this note was not in
the handwriting of Miss Perry, because she could
not write. He never saw the defendant until two
months after all the goods had been delivered. He
acted entirely under the direction of Russell, whom
he considered to be Sir Frederick's agent, but he
could not swear that he ever saw them together, or
that Sir Frederick was ever present on any occasion
when directions were given by Russell. He charged
a small discount upon all the work that was done,
and he also charged 5/, for commission, but when
Sir Frederick objected to that item he struck it
out. The landlord of the house supposed that it
was let to John Perry, Esq., of Lansdowne-terrace,
Ba h, and he knew nothing of Sir Frederick Pot-
tinger in the transaction. The goods were all sent
in by the direction of Sir Frederick's lady. She
was called sometimes Mrs. Perry, but he believed
she also went by the name of Lady Pottinger. The
servants used to call her "My Lady." (A. laugh.)
In re-examination the plaintiff said that he
had endeavoured to subpoena Elwell since these
proceedings, but was unable to find, him.
The different accounts of the parties who had
been employed were put in, and it appeared that
the plaintiff in his bill had nearly doubled some of
the charges made by them to him.
Martha Westwood deposed that she acted as cook
at the house in Cambridge-street. Sir Frederick
used to come there frequently, and stayed all night
sn,l breakfasted, but never dined. She remembered
that when the bill was sent in Sir Frederick was
very angry, and she bad repeatedly heard him say
to Miss Perry, " You must not be extravagant,
darling." (A laugh.) At the time he saw the
plaintiff's l ill be gave Miss Perry 201., and he then
gave her and her fellow-servant half-a sovereign
each and went out of the house. Sir Frederick
would not allow any one to come t o visit Miss Perry
but himself, and she had heard him say that if he
ever found any onein the house he should kick him
out. (A. laugh.)
Cross-examined—Miss Perry formerly lived in
Stanley- street. She would rather not answer the
question whether other gentlemen besides Sir F.
Pottinger used to visit her there.
Mr. James then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant, in his usual able and effective manner, and
he said that the amount sought to be recovered
was not of the slightest object, but theclaim was
resisted because Sir Frederick Pottinger considered
it to be merely an attempt to extort money, and
one for which there was not the slightest founda
tion. He could not, of course, attempt to justify
the conduct of the defendant in a moral point of
view, but he submitted that it was quite clear from
the evidence that the goods were supplied through
the agency of Russell, who was one of the bangers-
on that were always in connexion with unfortunate
women of this class, to Miss Perry at the most ex-
orbitant charges, with the id3a that he would be
paid either by Sir F. Pottinger or any other gen-
tleman
who might visit the house, rather than that
his name should be brought before the public in
connexion with such a transaction..
Sir Frederick Pottinger was then called—He
said, I am the defendant in this action. I was
acquainted with Miss Kate Perry, and remember
her taking the house in Cambridge-street. I never
authorised her to do so, and I know nothing of the
man Russell who has been spoken of, and never
saw him. I never passed by the name of Perry
at the house in Cambridge-street, and Miss Perry,
to my knowledge, was never called Lady Pottinger.
I never ordered a single article of this furniture, or
authorised it to be ordered. I used to give money
to Misa Perry occasionally for her expenses, and
I remember seeing a bill of the plaintiff's upon the
nvantle-shelf, and I saw that the charges were most
'exorbitant, and I _spoke to Miss Perry upon the
subject, and she sent for Mr. Clark, and I had
some conversation about his bill, and told him
that I was astonished to see that persons who
called themselves respectable should attempt to
fleece an unfortunate girl iu such a manner. He
was very indignant, and said he hoped I did net
allude to him. The plaintiff came repeatedly to
the house afterwards, and made a disturbance, and
I saw him upon one occasion, and he said he was
determined to have his money, and that his claim
was not 44/1, but 841. This was the first time I
had heard of such an amount, and I was very
angry and gave Miss Perry 201., telling her she
might pay it if she pleased, and I gave the servants
a sovereign, and left the house intending
not to re- I
turn. When I heard of the first bill, I offered to
pay the plaintiff 201. on account of Miss. Perry
but I did this solely because I took an
intaseB4/t , I
her ; but when I found that the claim
refused to pay a farthing. Soon afterwthis I ;as
arrested, while at dinner, on a Saturday evening.,
at the Great Western Hotel, upon an affidavit
made by the plaintiff that I was about to leave the
country,. and I was obliged to deposit the amount
of the claim.
Oross-examined—l have known Miss Perry for
four or five months. I first met her in April, at
dinner, avith two or three other gentlemen. lam
not aware that she was under the protection of
another gentleman at that time. I believe that
she was attached to one of those gentlemen, but as
he happened to be almost a pauper in his
circum-
stances it was not likely
The
she could have been
under his protection.
he referred had, he believed, been gentleman
iieei a to
colonelwls whom
the army.
Miss P
there. The
and she
at this time was living in
Stanley-street,re she had furniture of her own
arrange, no particular agreement made
that she sh nu
°l?.lit.t come under my protection, but the
ars' sent was carried out by a sort of mutual
suerstanding. (A laugh.) She told me she was
48, looking fora house, and she subsequently said she
Van. had found one in Cambridge-street, but she said no-
..atterly from the thing to me about wanting more furniture.t ..
.ok-
...ad produced an aflec Mr, Chambers—A gentleman who talks 0
f
haen
returned a verdict of ing any one else out of a house that he may
to find there, would surely have more o. do with