The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-04 00:00:00

ing, with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and to
prevent his lawful detainer."

The Learned JUDGE, i❑ passing sentence, said that
the crime W.fIS of such an atrocious description that he
could not feel justified in passing any sentence less
than that of transportation for life.

ROME CI Wit> IT.—Kingston, April 3.
Mr. Justice Maule having got through the crimi-
nal cases on Tuesday night, this morning proceeded
to assist in disposing of the common jury causes, and
it is understood that he will continue to du so until
the list is gone through.

PATCH V. MURRAY.

This action was brought to recover damages for an
assault.

Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Lush, were for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Creasy for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action was represented to be a
Parliamentary agent, and the defendant was a tea
dealer and grocer in the Westminster-road. It
seemed that on the Ist of February there was a dinner
at a place called the Victoria Tavern, opposite
Astley s Theatre, at which they were both present,
and several other persons were also invited; and
after dinner tea and coffee were introduced, and the
opinion of the defendant was asked with regard to
the quality of these articles. While this was going
on the plaintiff asked the defendant to taste his cup
of tea, which he declined ; and shortly afterwards he
pressed it upon him again, at the same time observing
that he was stupid, or something to that effect, not
to do so—and upon this the defendant took up the
cup of tea and threw it at him. The plaintiff then
threw the saucer at the defendant, who took up a
chair, and with both hands threw it at the plaintiff,
and the chair struck him on the breast ; and it was
for this assault that the present action was brought.
Mr. Nunn, who was one of the party, was called
as a witness, and he deposed to the particulars of the
assault, and said that after it had been committed the
plaintiff appeared very exhausted, and he was obliged
to go to bed.

Cross-examined—lf he said that all the party were
sober, it was as much as he could say.—(Laughter.)
After the chair was throWn at the plaintiff he tried
to get hold of the poker, but his weakness prevented
him from doing so. He believed the plaintiff was a
regular Parliamentary agent.
Mr. CREASY wished to know what kind of Parlia-
mentary agency he was engaged in, and whether it
did not consist in such acts as counting the names to
petitions, and so forth ?—The witness said he believed he
was employed by Mr. Ley, the Clerk of the House of
Commons, to count the number of names to the mon-
ster Chartist petition of the 10th of April, but he said he
was also engaged upon other business connected with
Parliamentary agency, and was at present employed
in conducting a Bill through the House of Commons.
Mr.JAMES said if he was not a Parliamentary agent
it was no reason why he should be knocked about in
this manner.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Justice AlauLE said certainly not, but still it
was as well that they should know who parties really
were. Every one knew what was really meant by
the term Parliamentary agent, and a person who was
engaged merely in counting signatures to petitions,
or in some such subordinate capacity, could hardly
be said to be a Parliamentary agent, any more than
a sheriff's bailiff's assistant would be justified in say-
ing he was a member of the legal profession.
Mr. GREASY, in addressing the jury for the defen-
dant, characterised the action as being one of a most
trumpery character, and which ought never to have
been brought into a superior court. He said it was
perfectly clear that the parties were all partially in-
toxicated, and that the plaintiff bad aggravated the
defendant, and induced him to act as he had done ;
and he called upon the jury to discourage such pro-
uedings as the present by giving the plaintiff the
smallest coin in the realm as damages for the assault
of which he complained.

Mr. Justice MAULE left the case to the jury, who
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, Is.
11Ir. Justice MAULS (to the jury)—You find a
general verdict for the plaintiff for the assault with
the tea and the chair ?

The Foreman—We do, my Lord; we give him one
shilling damages.

NORTEERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, April 3.
NISI PRIUS COUICr.—(Bt fore Mr. Baron RoLFE.)
somEßs v. LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action on the case brought by the plain-
tiff; Miss Maria Somerf, to recover compensation for
her trunk, which was lost by the defendants as com-
mon carriers between Manchester and Rugby, to the
plaintiff's damage of 1301. The defendants pleaded
Not guilty.

Mi. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Hugh Hill ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Martin, Q.C., and
Mr. Cowling for the defendants.
The plaintiff in this case was Miss Maria Somers,
an actress, who came down to Manchester to obtain
an engagement at the Theatre Royal, Manchester, in
the way of her profession. Whilst at Manchester she
lodged at humble lodgings, at No. 4, Dickenson-
street, Manchester. Not succeeding in obtaining an
engagement, on the 14th of January last she pre-
pared to leave Manchester. She had with her two
trunks—one containing her ordinary clothing, the
other, a very large one, containing the robes, dresses,
and jewellery she required for her profession ;
amongst these were a gold watch, a gold chain, some
rings, some silk dresses, some cotton ones, and five
or six " character dresses" and some ballet dresses.
She sent for a cab to convey herself and luggage
to the London and North-Western4Railway station.
The cabman corded her trunks, placed them on his
cab, and conveyed her and her trunks to the station,
where a railway porter took the trunks and wrote
upon them "Rugby" in chalk. Miss Somers went
into the office to obtain a ticket, and having got it
went on to the platform. Whilst there a number of
the swell mob were discovered attempting to pick
pockets, and there was in consequance great confu-
sion, amidst which the plaintiff got into a carriage.
She inquired, after the confusion had subsided, about
her trunks, and was assured by a porter that her
luggage was all right. On arriving at Rugby,
where the plaintiff wanted to stay a short time, one of
her trunks could not be found, but she was assured
on giving a description of it that it would be for-
warded to her in London. On her arrival afterwards
in London she wrote about:it to the company's officers,
tpoifefin.isth,aatadinodnbeen vets• serious, because not
but from thatfurh e
h daye r lo
companyts to the present rseeeosdne ns
consequence
ndv
give
ehhetearr
hny nothingclom. _
c.:havienpir plain-
tiff' had
she had been unable to obtain any enage-
meat. These ficts, and that the missing trunk had
been seen on the company's platform, having been
proved,

Mr. MARTIN addressed the jury in reduction of
damages, contending that the value of such dresses as
had been dehcribed was trifling. He had been near
enough to ballet dancers to judge of the quality of
their dresses, and they were the most flimsy things
he ever saw.—(Laughter.)
His LORDSHIP having summed up,
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—da-
mages 401.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Alfred Tiffin was summoned before Alderman
Carden, by Mr. Fisher, the inspector of meat for the
city of London, for having in a registered slaughter-
house in Aldersgate the carcase of a cow which was
unfit to be used as human food.
The complainant said it was evident that the cow
was kept from open exhibition in consequence of
being too bad to be shown. It was what was called
" a wet 'un," which meant that the sale of such a thing
could not be justified.
The defendant—l purchased the cow in Smith-
field, and I kept it alive for three days. It was poor
in flesh I allow, but I do assure you it was sound
meat. If it was not fit for food it ought not to be
let into Smithfield.
Alderman CARDEN—HOW much did you pay for
the cow ? Defendant—Two pound and two and
sixpence.—(Laughter.)
Alderman CARDEN—What, for a sound cow ? De-
fendant—Yes, your Worship, you can get plenty at
30.. a piece now.
Mr. Fisher said that no doubt there were numbers
of carcases to be had at the rate described by the de-
fendant, but they were used merely by portable soup
and polony and saveloy makers, who knew well where
to lay their hands upon the " wet uns." It was much
to be regretted that the authorities had an exces-
sively limited power in cases of the kind.
Alderman CARDEN—What is the price cf a cow
fit for general service ? Mr. Fisher said that he be-
lieved 141. or 151. was the average price.
The defendant—l did not buy it to sell as human
food.
Alderman CARDEN—For what then did you buy it?
The defendant—Only just to make a shilling by it.
I am sure I am sorry now that I bought anything of
the kind.
Alderman CARDEN—The offence is a serious one,
and you will be sorry for having committed it before
you and I part. You, and persons like you, posi-
tively poison the poor, and I am resolved that such a
practice shall not be continued. It is in my power
to fine you 201. for this offence, but I hope the inflic-
tion of 203. will prove in your case sufficient. Let
your companions who deal in this sort of article know
that in every future case that is proved before me I
shall certainly inflict the very highest penalty.
The defendant paid the fine and costs, and said it
was too bad, that in Smithfield cows of the kind were
sold like other cows.
Mr. Fisher said the polony, sausage, and saveloy
makers knew very well where to go to be supplied
with the raw material for their trade.
Alderman CARDEN—And the defendant knows well
where to go for a supply of that the use of which
a7,3wers his purpose.