The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-18 00:00:00

have come here to obtain money on false p retences."
The poor plaintiff only answered to this by calling
attention to his certificates, and requesting the doc-
tor to read them. An inspection of them, however,
only served to strengthen the conviction. of the de-
fendant, for it turned out that in one or two of
them which had been copied out by third parties,
there were several false spellings--in fact, on the faee
of them there was evidence that they did not proceed
from the parties purporting to have signed them.
That, however, was only true of one or two of the
certificates. The defendant, then, having before
his eyes the frequent narratives published in the
newspapers of parties obtaining relief by false cer-
tificates, and probably also influenced by the nervous
manner of the plaintiff, called in a policeman, and
communicated his suspicions regarding the plaintiff
to that functionary. He then invited the police-
man to take the plaintiff to the station, and make
inquiries respecting his antecedents. This the
policeman refused to do, on the ground that the
defendant did not seem to be able to show that the
plaintiff had done anything. On that the defen-
dant resolved to give the plaintiff in charge, and
he was accordingly taken to the Vine-street sta-
tion. After a while .he was followed there by the
defendant, who, after some conversation with the
inspector, charged the plaintiff withhaving gone to
him (Dr. Chilver) " upon some supposed unlawful
purpose." The plaintiff then gave his testimonials
and certificates to the inspector, and subsequently,
after about half-an-hour's detention, he was al-
lowed to go forth. The plaintiff called upon the
defendant the following morning by, appointment ;
but defendant refused to see him, saying that he (Dr.
Chilver) continued of the same opinion with respect
to him as on the previous day. In order to meet
the allegation that he had gone to Dr. Chilver
solely for the purpose of obtaining that gentleman's
certificate, with a view to influencing the Treasury,
and that there was no intention, on the part of the
plaintiff of taking advice as to his possible recovery,
it was shown that the plaintiff, on the occasion of
his interview with the defendant, had in his pocket
half notes for £3O, besides £4 in sovereigns. He
was therefore in ample funds to pay any fees that
the defendant might be entitled to.
The defence on the record was that the defendant
did not give the plaintiff in charge at all. All that
had been done was, in the exercise of a proper
caution, to request a policeman to take the plaintiff,
as a suspected character, to the station, and make
inquiries as to his antecedents. This part of the
defendant's case, however, completely broke down,
on the testimony of the policeman who had taken
the plaintiff into custody. It only remained, there-
fore, to address the jury in mitigation of damages,
on the supposition that the plaintiff had visited the
defendant solely for the purpose of procuring his
certificate gratuitously ; secondly, on the ground
of the false spellings in the certificates held by the
plaintiff; and thirdly, on the circumstance that the
plaintiff had suffered little or no inconvenience from
his detention.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages, £5O.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins in London.—Before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Common Jury.)
LUDFORD V. AIRMAN AND BELL.-TRESPASS.
This was an action to recover damages for tres-
pass in seizing the plaintiff's goods under two
executions against a Mr. Judkins.
Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Griffith appeared for
the plaintiff, Mr. Skinner for the defendant Bell,
and Mr. Carnock for Aikman.

The plaintiff's case was that Judkins formerly
carried on business at 98, Fleet-street, selling gas
regulators and sewing machines, which were patent
articles. At the latter end of Dec., 1857, he sold
his business and stock to the plaintiff, who had
previously had dealings with him. The price was
£123 55., and the plaintiff gave his bill for the
amount. The bargam was reduced to writing, it
being part of the terms that the plaintiff should
take the premises in Fleet-street for a year, Mr.
Judkins reserving to himself the first floor. The
plaintiff afterwards brought a considerable quan-
tity of other property upon the premises. On March
25th the defendants, with a person named Overall,
an officer, went to Fleet-street, and seized the whole
of the property, under two executions against Mr.
Judkins, for £l4 7s. 3d. and £6l9s. ld. The things
were removed the next day, and retained until
about the middle of April, when after some inter-
pleader proceedings they were returned.
In the course of the plaintiff's case terms of set-
tlement were agreed upon between the parties.
Mr. Skinner said as Mr. Aikman was an officer
of the corporation, it might be as well to state that
there was no reflection upon his character ; and as
regarded Mr. Bell, though himself an attorney, he
had on this occasion "acted only as clerk to some
othei• attorneys, and did as he was directed, so that
there could be no imputation upon him.
Mr. Charnock said Overall was an officer him-
self of the corporation, and Mr. Aikman had
nothing to do with the transaction.
A verdict was entered by consent for the defen-
dant Aikman, without costs, and against the defen-
dant Bell—damages £5 ss.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
WALLIS V. WALLIS.-CRUELTY.
The petitioner in this case was the wife of a gun.
maker in Jermyn-street. She was married to the
respondent in 1843, and had four children. She
charged him with striking her on the face, locking
her in her bedroom, depriving her of her clothes
and jewels, using threats and other acts of cruelty.
These allegations were proved by her own evidence
and that of servants and other witnesses.
Mr. W. Barry and Mr. E. Hanson were counsel
for the petitioner, and Dr. Spinks for the respon-
dent. The learned counsel adduced no evidence for
the defence.

Sir C. Cresswell said that issues were frequently
raised in that court that were of far greater social
importance than any of those questions of contract
or debt which juries had so often to decide. It

was not the policy of the law to grant separations
on trivial grounds, or from any mere incompatibility
of temper. Husbands and wives might make each
other as wretched as they pleased provided they
only kept hands off, and refrained from threats from
which violence might reasonably be apprehended.
His lordship having summed up the case,
The jury found that the respondent had been
guilty of cruelty.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Feb. 17.

MANSION-HOUSE.—William Leech and Wil-
liam Connor were brought before the Lord Mayor,
charged with having attempted to pick pockets in
Gracechurch-street.

W. Smith, constable 572, said that on the pre-
vious evening he was in Gracechurch-street, when
he observed Connor beckon Leech to follow him. He
watched them and saw them try the pockets of
several ladies. They then proceeded along Fen-
church-street, and again tried the pockets of gentle-
men and ladies, Leech generally screening Connor,
while the latter was "operating."
Leech—When you saw me try the first pocket as
you state, why did you not grab me at once ?
Witness—Because I thought I'd wait a little
longer. (Laughter.)
The gaoler—Connor has been here before.
Smith—Both prisoners gave false addresses.
The Lord Mayor sentenced them to twenty-one
days' imprisonment each, and ordered some silver
found upon them to be appropriated towards their
maintenance while in gaol.
Henry Campbell, 24, was charged with commit-
ting a similar offence in Gracechurch-street.
The charge was clearly proved by Edwin James,
assistant to Messrs. White, grocers, 63, High-street,
Borough, who said that the prisoner 'knocked him
down when he seized him. Witness had lost his
situation through being detained when he gave the
prisoner into custody.
The Lord Mayor—I am sure your employers will
not discharge you for that. Make my compliments
to your masters, and tell them that you were only
doing your duty to the public.
The prisoner was committed for six weeks, with
hard labour.

GUILDHALL.—A summons against two gen-
tlemen of the names of Church and Smith, late di-
rectors of the "London Starch Company (Limited),"
charging them with conspiring to defraud an in-
surance broker of Manchester, of the name of Brad-
ley, of bills to the amount of £9,000, was part heard
and adjourned, the defendants being admitted to
bail in their own recognisances, without being per-
mitted to cross-examine the only witness put for-
ward.

BO W-STREET.—William Chart, a Post-office
letter carrier in the S or southern district, was
charged with delaying the delivery of letters.
Mr. Peacock, the Post-office solicitor, said that
the misconduct with which the prisoner was
charged had been discovered by mere accident by
another letter-carrier, named Smith, in whose
house at Clapham-rise the prisoner lodged. They
were in the habit of taking their meals in the
kitchen, where their letter-bags usually hung on a
Wednesdaypeg behind the door. On Smith de-
sired his wife to go to his bag and put into it a re-
ceipt for a registered letter. By mistake she went
to Chart's bag instead, and found there 13 letters,
which she handed over to her husband. He at once
took them to the Southern District-office, and gave
them up to the inspector, Mr. W. Edwards, who
caused them to be delivered by another letter-carrier
named Cave. These letters should have been. de-
liYered 914. tilt? M ltb, And 4thin4t, Cve, though a