The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVEN

Busineas
done.

Ivo
lOU
all
100

100
1100
2
100
100

SIONS.

61 66

IC4
3 4
5 7

68 71

18 52
99 102
tO4i 1054
109 110

151 161

I:sk

1111 f

181 i

110$ 1

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-7.111S DAY.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
(Before Vice Chancellor Giffard.)
TIIF. EDMUNDS SCANDAL CASE . -ATTORNEY- GENERAL

V. ED3I UNDS.

The Attorney-General stated this was an infor-
mation, in which it was prayed that an account may
be taken of all fees and moneys received by the de-
fendant, or any person on his behalf, as Clerk of
the Patents, since the date of his appointment, and
also of all moneys received by him from the Trea-
sury as expenses of the office. It was also prayed that
in taking the accounts the defendant ought to ac-
count for all profits made by the purchase and re-
sole of certiin stamps, and that no deluctions for
the parchments used should be made.

The information having been received in its
entirety, the answer of Mr. Edmunds was then
read, iu which he contended that the Court of
Chancery was the proper court in which the ques-
tion ought to be argued. The document concluded
with a summary of the claims and allowances to
which he (Mr. Edmunds) considered himself
entitled. It was as follows Over payments
to the Exchequer ou the 12.10 account for 1333 to
1814 inclusive, £2,837 7s. 10d. ; due on the gene-
ral account £299 ls. 101 ; for moneys paid in mis-
take were over £l3O 17s. 2d. ; ditto on the accounts
with the Treasuay from 1852 to 1861, £6 Bs. 3d. ;
amount of discount allowances on the sum of
£183,222 15s. Gd. ; cash receipts and pay-
ments at 2i per cent., £4,580, making a
total of £7,846 15s. ld. He also claimed to be
paid proper interest on any balances which may
be found due to him on taking such accounts as
prayed for. Mr. Edmunds states that during 31
years he held the office he was responsible for the
receipt of £1,600,000.
It was also contended on the part of the defend-
ant that the purchase of stamps was a great benefit
to the public, and that they were not bought out
of the public monies, and that instead of a misap-
propriation on the part of !;he defendant, all the
transactions now in question were right and proper.
The case will last for some days.

TILE COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
LLOYD V. BURRUP AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by the Rev. Mr.
Lloyd, incumbent of St. Mark's, Kennington,
against the defendants, who are the churchwardens
of that parish. One of the defendants allowed
judgment to go by default.
Many of our readers have no doubt been aware
that for some time past and since Mr. Lloyd's
appointment a series of contentions have arisen be-
tween himself and the parishioners in consequence
of his having introduced certain practices in the
performance of public worship which arc repugnant
to the feeling of the congregation, who are principally
of
tiie
L wasw t Church
o b
The stipend of the
plaintiff
the rents of the pews,
e paid party.
from
and any surplus that might remain was to be em-
ployed towards the repairing, lighting, and main-
taining the church. The defendant and his col-
league had received different small sums, a portion
of which he laid out in the repairing, &c., of the
foundation, leaving a deficiency in the amount of
the plaintiff's stipend. Ile contended that the
whole of the amount duo to him should be paid
before a farthing of it should be applied to any
other purpose. Witnesses having been examined
on both sides, the counsel for the defendant de-
murred to the pleadings,. and, after a long argu-
ment, a verdict was entered for the plaintiff on one
count and the defendant on the other, with leave to
move.

Under these circumstances the point raised will
come on for argument before the full court.

POLICE INTELLIG EiVCE.-THIS DAl'.

.MARLBOItO UG II- STREET.

ASSAULT.—ALLEGED VIOLENCE OF THE POLICE.
man, was charged with
and
Gray, with
tni n
53 gF
F. Rook,
pol_ c constablesY itlg
l

Brown said that on the previous afternoon he
saw the prisoner ejected from the King's Arms,
Moor-street, St. Martin's-lane, by the barium, and
the prisoner then tried to re-enter the house, but
was prevented. He told the prisoner to go
away, but he refused, and a crowd of persons col-
lected, upon which the prisoner s yid, " You fool,
the crowd are laughing at you." Finling he could
not get rid of the prisoner he took him into cus-
tody, and on the way to the station he kicked hiin,
threw him down, and then kicked him on the shoul-
der. With the assistance of three other constables
the prisoner was got to the station, behaving with
violence all the way.
In answer to Mr. Knox, the constable said the
prisoner was drunk.
The prisoner said that he was standing at the
corner of the street when the constable came up
and told him to go away, and, because he did not,
he took him into custody, and when the police took
him into Compton-street they pulled him about and
handled him roughly, and the people called out
" Shame 1" and his arm seemed if it was broken.
Gray said that he went to the assistance of the
first witness, when the prisoner behaved very vio-
lently and struck him (Gray).
Mr. Knox asked the prisoner whether he meant
to persist in the statement he had made, and on his
saying that he did, Mr. Knox said that he would
not take upon himself to decide the case, but would
send it before a jury.
James Harvey, barman at the King's Arms, was
then sent for, and he stated that he ejected the pri-
soner, who was drunk, from the house, because he
made use of abusive and disgusting language to
two females,
and the prisoner afterwards, because
he was not allowed to re-enter, tried to break a pane
of glass. The constable then came up, and told the
prisoner to go away, and as he would not the con-
stable took him away.
In answer to the prisoner, all the witnesses
stated that they did not hear any one cry out
t( Shame." •

The prisoner said that he. had witnesses, and Mr.
Knox ordered theta to be called, but they did not
answer.

Mr. Knox committed the prisoner for trial, and
stated that the prisoner would have an opportu-
nity of calling these or any witnesses he thought
proper.

-~~.,

WESTMINSTER

looking fellow, was charged with
ly assaulting VIOLENT ASSAULTS ON THE POLlCE.—Cornelius
Itiohn
Large, sergeant, 24 G,
and Constable James Groves, 160 G.
Sergeant Large, 24 G, said, I was on duty is the
King's-road last
vulse,taruaffiaanullyti-ng
John
night, at the entrance to Cremorno
Gardens, and had occasion to watch the prisoner,
who was loitering about the cabs ; at 20 minutes
to 1 two ladies came out and got into a cab ;
the prisoner held the door open, and as the last one
got in he put his hand over her pocket. I did not
e the handten
place,
i
told him not to come back again.
About in
the pocket at all, so I cautioned the
prisoner,
nutes past one I came back to the
same
men. I then told him to move away, or I should
lock him up, and he immediately ran into
the road and said, " You ——, you can't lock me
se
andl
and saw him
up," and called me everything he could lay his
tongue to. There were a great number of people
about, and I took him into custody. As soon as I
took him he gave me a severe blow in the chest,
from which I feel the effects this morning. lie
kicked me violently, and when Groves, 160, came
to my assistance •he kicked and struck, and tried
to kick him iu a dangerous part of his person.
We were obliged to carry him to the station face
downwards, he was so violent.
Groves, 160 T 1 corroborated.
Prisoner denied the charge of assault, and ex-
hibiting a black eye, said the police-constable had
given it him.

Mr. Arnold said both the assaults were unjusti-
fiable, and that on the constable oue of the most
ruffianly description, trying to kick a man in a dan-
gerous part of his body. He sentenced him to 14
days' for the assault__ on the sergeant, and ono
mouth for the assault oh Groves.