The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-14 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE

ACTION AGAINST A RAILWAY 001fPiiNY. —ln the Court
of Common Pleas the case of Winterbotham v. the
East Gloucestershire Railway Company was heard. It
was an action to recover £3,500, the balance of money to
be paid to the plaintiff for lands required by the railway.
There were two agreements, one in 1864 and the other in
1866, by which the defendants agreed to pay to the plain-
tiff £4,300 for land and buildings required for the railway
works, and also to pay interest and legal expenses. A de-
posit of 2800 was paid, and the defendants agreed to pay
the residue on or before the 24th of June, 1867,
"at which time, under any circumstances, the
remainder of the purchase-money was to be paid."
That time had elapsed, but nothing further had
been done ; the land had not been conveyed or taken, nor
had the defendants asked the plaintiff to convey or shew
title to it. For the plaintiff it was argued that, the time
having elapsed for payment of the remainder of the
purchase-money, the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the
action on the general averment of his readiness to do all
that was required on his part. For the defendants it was
said that the remainder of the purchase-money was not to
be paid until the completion of the purchase. The jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff.
ROBBERY IN A RAILWAY CARRIAGE.—At Southwark
Police-court, James Kay was charged with stealing a £5O
Bank of England note from Nicholas Mattowich, a native
of Hamburg, while travelling by the Crystal Palace Rail-
way between New-cross and London Bridge. It seems
that the prosecutor was on the platform at Sydenham,
and was about to get into a second-class carriage
that was going to London Bridge, when the prisoner
came up and told him to get into a first-class and
it would be " all right." The complainant did so, and
the train had not proceeded many yards when cards were
introduced, and the prisoner with a third person began to
ploy. Mattowich was induced to bet, and ultimately the
prisoner asked him to back him for £5O, and if he (the
prosecutor) lost he would receive the money back, as the
prisoner only wanted encouraging. The complainant
foolishly complied with the request, and the prisoner got
out at London Bridge and went away. The case was
remanded.

DRUNKENNESS IN A WORKHOUSE.— 2t the Lambeth
Police-court, James Rearden, a pauper in the Lambeth
Workhouse, was charged with disorderly conduct. The
priioner, a young man, 81:ffered from scrofula, and accord
ing to the evidence of Mr. Bullen, surgeon at the house, he
required liberal diet and beer when admitted. Davis, the
taskmaster, who was the first witness, described the con
duct of the prisoner on Wednesday morning, when he
made a noise in the sick ward, and the master was sent for.
The prisoner was excited from drink, and the witness wat
ordered to put him out of the ward by Mr. Catch. The
prisoner threatened to give him the knife whenever he had
the opportunity. His conduct was most violent. Mr.
Catch, the master, gave similar evidence. The prisoner
put himself in a fighting attitude, and appeared to be ex-
cited from drink. Mr. Elliott asked how a person could
get drink in a workhouse. He thought such a thing was
not allowed. Mr. Catch said there was a quantity
of beer allowed to those on the sick list and those
who laboured. Those who received beer bartered it,
and intoxication was the result. Mr. Elliott said he
thought the beer ought to be stopped. The master said
that was his opinion, and that was what he wA wanting to
bring about. There was a great quantity of beer allowed
in Lambeth Workhouse, and two-thirds were given for
labour. He did not apply his remarks to those under
medical treatment, but he hoped that a different system
would be adopted to that allowed to other inmates. It was
now bartered away, and some obtained more than they
needed, and lk came excited by drink. Mr. Elliott was
reluctant to send the defendant to prison, and on extract-
ing a promise from him that he would behave better.in
future he allowed him to return to the workhouse.

ATTEMPTED MURDER BY A SON.-At the Leicester
Police-court, Thomas W. S. Frisby WRB charged
_ .

with attempting to murder his father, Thomas Frisby.
From the evidence of the prisoner's mother, it appeared
that an unpleasantness had arisen between hin► and his
father, in consequence of the latter disapproving of a con-
nection his son had formed with a young woman. This led
to the son leaving home about seven weeks ago, since
which time be had had no communication with his father.
On Tuesday night, about ten o'clock, he went to his
father's house in a state of intoxication, and asked to see
his father. Mrs. Frisby tried to persuade prisoner to come
another time ; but he rushed past her and entered the
kitchen, where his father was partaking of supper, and
deliberately shot him with a pistol. The charge, which
consisted of small shot, lolged in the right cheek of Mr.
Frisby, and the prisonei decamped by a side door. The
prisoner, who was apprehended in bed, when charged with
the offence, simply said, " Oh! is the old man dead ?" The
prisoner was remanded.