The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-25 00:00:00

PR IL 2.51 1850.

,*,CHE.7%IF.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr.
Welsbv)y said that if the present company was enti-
tled to be registered, any company for the distribu-
tion of money or goods by lottery would be entitled
to the same privilege. Ile contended, first, that the
company was not established for any commercial
purpose, or for any purpose of profit. The obj,-,ct of
the Act was to encourage trading companies which
might produce a profit to shareholders and the public.
In this case no profit could be made, and if it were
made, that was merely subsidiary to the main object.
Secondly, the scheme was a lottery, which did not
depend on whether there were blanks or prizes. Tne
whole scheme was founded on the fact, that those who
drew prizes were entitled to an advantage; and the
question of the amount of advantage was immaterial.
Thirdly, by the 25th section of the Act parties who
applied to have their schemes registered were bound
to state their business, and they were bound to tell
their whole business. They had not done so, for it was
returned, and not denit d, that they carried on the
business of bankers in Holborn; and it was contrary
to public policy to give any sanction to a company
which was violating the law.
Mr. PEAcocx, in reply, said the only object of the
parties was to comply with the Act of Parliament,
for it would not give them power to do anything
which could not be done without registration.
There was a power given to the directors to sell as
well as purchase lands, so that great profit might
result.
Lord CAMPBELL—VaIuabIe mines might be dis-
covered.

Mr. Justice ERLE—But that is not the purpose for
which the company is established.
Mr. PEACOCK—If any profit were made, that
would be sufficient. It could not be regarded as a
lottery, for those who drew priz?s must ply five per
cent. upon the amount of capital expended in the pro-
duce of the land allotted, and in the improvements ef-
fected upon it. He (the Learned Counsel) thought
that moat owners of land would be very willing to let
all their land on these terms.

Lord CAMPBELL—The— scheme may be a lottery
after all, then, it being considered an advantage not to
have any lands allotted.
Mr. PEACOCK snbmittQd it was merely a partition
of their ow•n lands among part- owners. If the company
should be declared to be illegal, those who had paid
deposits would not be able to recover them back ; but
if it should be declared to be legal, and entitled to
registration, it would be brought within the Winding-
up Act.

Lord CAMPBELL said the Court would take time
to consider whether the company was established for
a commercial purpose, or for any purpose of profit,
and whether it came within the Lottery A,:ts ; but
not the other objections which had been urged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 24.
(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice WILDF,
and Justices CRESSWELL, ITILLIAMS, and TAle.
FOURD.)
This was a special papsr day.
LEVY V. MOYLAN AND OTIIERS.
This was an action of trespass, in which the plain-
tiff, Lawrence Levy, complained that on the 20th of
February last he was taken into custody and dragged
to Tothill-fields House of Correction, where he was
kept tw o days in confinement, by order of the defen-
dant Mr. Dennis Creagh Moylan, late judge of the
Westminster County Court, against whom, Francis
Smedley, his high bailiff, William Flack, assistant
bailiff, and Frederick Tracey, the governor of the
fothill.fields House of Correction, the present action
was brought. The death of the defendant Moylan
was suggested on the record, and the other defendants
pleaded a plea in justification, setting out that the
trespass in question occurred in the district of the
Westminster County Court, of which the de-
fendant Moylan was judge; and justifying
the trespass complained of, under a warrant
signed by the judge, and under the seal of
the Court directed to the defendant Smedley and the
constables, peace officers within the jurisdiction, and
to the governor of the House of Correction of Tuthill-
fields, the said warrant reciting that the plaintiff did
wilfully insult the defendant Moylan during the
sitting of the County Court, and that thereupon he
(the said judge) ordered him into custody until the
rising of the Court, and required the High Bailiff then
to deliver him to the Governor of Tuthill-fields Gaol,
to be there kept in custody for seven days, or until
he should be discharged. The defendants severed in
their pleading, each pleading similar pleas. To these
pleas there was a special demurrer, on the ground
that the pleas were bad for uncertainty, "in not
showing in what manner the plaintiff insulted the
said Dennis Creagh Moylan, whether by words, ges-
ture', or acts, and on the ground that the warrant
recited contained no commitment to any prison.
Mr. S. TEMPLE, in support of the demurrer, con-
tended that the warrant was bad. It should have
shown on the face of it what the insults were, in
order that the jurisdiction of the judge might be seen
from the warrant itself (" Gosset v. Howard," 10
Q. B.). The officers of the Court were only justified
by the warrant when it was good, and they were
bound to judge of its sufficiency, otherwise they
would be exonerated for carrying out warrants of
the most illegal kind. Where were you to draw the
line, if the warrant ordered an officer to take a man
and hang him ?
Mr. WHATELEY—Round his neck.—(A laugh.)

Mr. TEMPLE—A duty beyond impliCit obedience
to the warrant must be imposed on the officer, or
grave inconveniences might result. Then what was
to be deemed an insult? If the insult were to be
depend on the caprice of the judge, and need not be
set forth, a man's liberty might depend on the state of
the judge's digestion and on whether or no he supped
heavily the night before. It might be said that the
113th section of the County Court's Act which en-
acted that "if any person shall wilfully insult the
judge, or any juror, or any bailiff, clerk, or officer of
the said court during his sitting or attendance in court,
or in going to or returning from court, it should be
lawful for the bailiff or other officer, by order of the
judge, to take such offender into custody and detain
him until the rising of the court, and the judge should
have power afterwards to commit for seven days,"
gave the judge the power to decide what was a suffi-
cient insult to warrant the exercise of this au-
thority. That power must, however, be liable
to supervision, and the nature cf the insult ought
to have been stated. Would it be said that
twirling a white feather before the judge would
warrant such an exercise of power ? Or if a
person put his thumb to his nose on meeting the
high bailiff in the street, would that warrant it ? Or
was an advocate to be deemed to he insulting the
Court because he was tedious? lle submitted on

these grounds that the warrant was insufficient —and
was no justification to the officer, and that the judg-
ment must be for the plaintiff.
Mr. WTUATELET, Q.C., for the defendants Smedley
and Flack, submitted that the warrant was a sufficient
justification for them, and that they were not hound
to inquire into the sufficiency of the warrant. There
could be no doubt that the judge had the power to
commit for contempt, the court being a court of re-
cord, and there was no doubt that the 113th section
of the County Courts Act gave that power. Supposing
the insults were as suggested by his Learned Friend,
they were gross insults. A gentleman now in Par-
liament had supposed the act of " taking a sight" to
be derived from the Phoenicians, but it was no doubt
a gross insult and twirling a white feather in a
judge's face might so irritate him as to render him
incapable of fulfilling his office. But were these acts
to be described in the warrant, the warrant would be
ridiculous. He submitted the warrant was sufficient.
Mr. OGLE, for the defendant Tracey, addressed
similar arguments to the Court.
Mr. TEMPLU having replied,
The COURT took time to consider its judgment.

THE LORD MAYOR or LONDON V. PARKINI4ON
This was an action of debt, the verdict in which
was made subject to a special case. The plaiotiff
brought the action to recover a large sum alleged to
be due by th,, defendant for co.d duties, the defendant
being the proprietor of a new kind of fuel imported
into London from Newcastle, called the Tyne Patent
Fuel. The component parts of this fuel were 87
parts of ::mall coal, 10 parts of pi:ch, and three of
lime. The question raised in the special case was,
whether or no this fuel was substantially coal, and
6ubject to the duty as such, or a different manufac-
tured article.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
C9rIRT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, April 24.
THE QUEEN V. WIIMIARSIL-THE NATIONAL LAND

In this case a mandamus had lisued, directed to
Francis IVhitmarsb, the registrar of Joint Stock Com-
panies, commanding him to register the National
Land Company's scheme. The defendant made a re-
turn, in which he alleged that the company in ques-
tion was not established for any commercial purpose,
or for any purpose of profit ; that the company car-
ried on the business of bankers, being constituted of
more than five persons, and carrying on such business
within sixty miles of London ; and, lastly, that the
scheme was illegal, it being conducted in the manner
of a lottery. The prosecutor demurred to the return,
which demurrer now came on for argument.
Mr. PEACOCK (with whom was Mr. Macnamara)
supported the demurrer. lle contended that the Na-
tional Land Company was a commercial company,
established for the purpose of profit, such profit being
employed, not for the private advantage of any one
member, but for the purpose of promoting the general
success of the scheme. The object of the scheme was
the purchase of land, to be divided in allotments
amongst the subscribers. He denied that the com-
pany was a banking company within the meaning of
the Banking Acts, although it had established a bank
for receiving and applying the contributions of the
members. Neither was it a lottery, no member
having an interest opposed to that of the rest of the
members, though it was true that some might at an
earlier period than others have the enjoyment of those
interests.

The case was fully proved, and the counsel for
the plaintiff's saying they wanted only nominal
damages, V ith a ‘iew to the question of right and the
proceedings in E quity, the damages were assessed at
403, and his Lordship certified tor costs.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, April 24.
(Before Mr. Sergeant Angus, Assistant-Judge, and
a Bench of Magistrates.)
THE ARGYLL BOOMS.
The grand jury in the course of the day brought
into Court four true bills of indictment against
George French Bryer, Robert I3ignell, Christopher
Browne, and Emile Laurent, the elder, for a misde-
meanour, in keeping the Argyll Rooms, in Great
Windmill-street, Ilaytnarket, open for music and
dancing without being licensed in pursuance of the
25th George 11.
The informer Stowell then handed in some affi-
davits, upon which he prayed that warrant might be
issued in the usual course.

The Learned JUDGE inquired whether the parties
were not at the present moment under an indictment
in respect of these rooms, and whether the offence
now alleged was not committed at the same time in
both cases ?

Sowell replied in the affirmative.
Mr. o'l3aiEN said he had been instructed to apply
on behalf of the dt-fondants that any warrant which
the Court might grant should not issue until Friday,
as some of them were out of town, and would be till
that day. On that day the parties would be pre-
pared to come in and give bail. There were, however,
already indictments against the same defendants at the
instance of the same person, in reTeet of which, so
far as some of the defendants were concerned, a nolle
prosequi had been entered, pending in the Central
Criminal Court.

The Learned JUDGE said he should grant the ap-
plication of the Learned Counsel.

Charles King, aged 15, was indicted for having
fraudulently obtained by false pretences the sums cf
12s. and 142. from Mr. W. Pinney, 1\1.P., and Mr. J.
Bonham Carter, M.P.,-their property, with intent to
cheat and defraud them.

Mr. Payne appeared for the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor's
and of TozJr, a servant, that on the 30;1 of January
the defendant went to their residence in Berkeley..
square, and presented a receipt fur 14F. for a copy of
the modern edition of " \Vhateley on the Common
Prayer," which had been delivered for Mr. Pinney,
and which the receipt alleged had been ordered some
time previously by a member of that gentleman's
family. Under the impression that this statement
was correct, Mr. Pinney gave 14s. to Tozer, and told
him to pay the sum to the defendant. This instruc-
tion was in due course carried out; but it sub-
sequently was discovered that the book had not been
ordered, and, moreover, that the publishing price was
only 3i. 61 Steps wore thereupon taken, which re-
sulted in the apprehension of the defendant. When
he was searched a large number of similar receiWs
were found upon him. Similar proofs were also
given in respect of the fraud upon Mr. Carter.
The jury found the defendant Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE -sentenced him to six month'
imprisonment and hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
IVES TWA STER.
Thomas Powell, a middle-aged Irishman, who de-
scribed himself as an artist, was charged with sending
threatening letters to the Earl of Besborough.
His LORDSHIP stated that he had received a num-
ber of abusive letters, bearing the same signature,
but none couched in so violent a strain as the two he
now produced, which were the subject of the present
charge.
The two letters alluded to were put in in evidence
and read by Mr. W. Taylor, the chief clerk. The
first bore date July 27, and after abusing his Lord•
ship in unmeasured terms fur having neglected to
answer his previous communications, recommended
him to do him justice, and that speedily; and then
said :—" Do not drive me to become a second Mac-
naughten ; his imaginary wrongs drove him to mad-
ness—my real ones may have a similar termination."
The writer, after stating that he bad been unable
from illness produced by persecution he had received,
to follow his profession for the last eighteen months,
again entreated his Lordship " not to convert him
into [mother Maenaughten, ' and signed himself
"Thomas Powell."
The second letter, which was dated 15th inst., was
a tissue of the most violent abuse and invective, un-
sparingly heaped upon his Lordship, the late Earl, •
and his father. The threat it contained was, that in
the writer's peregrinations through town in search of
his Lordship he had brought a good stick in his
band to support his tottering steps, and to lay about
his Lordship's shoulders, unless he gave him copies of
informations he had exhibited against some persons in
Ireland, and other papers, and the letter concluded
by stating—" I will await your return here, and at
your peril refuse," and bore the same signature as the
other.

Mr. James Russell, superintendent of the B divi-
sion, who had apprehended defendant upon a warrant,
stated that on the 31st of January he went to him at
the address given in his letters, in obedience to an
order frcm Mr. Mayne, Commissioner of Police, and
told the accused that if he continued to write letters of

this description to the Earl of Thesborough he would
be charged before a magistrate. The accused, who
admitted that he had sent the letters, said that he
would desist as far as writing was concerned, but
would annoy his Lordship in the street. Witness
told him he might rest assured that if he attempted
such a course he would be taken into custody ; and in
consequence of what he said witness had had a con-
stable in plain clothes following him ever since.
Mr. BRODERIP—You have had an eye kept upon
him since that time ? Mr. Russell—Yes, sir, con-
tinually.
Mr. BRODERIP (to his Lordship)—Do you pray
the protection of the law ? Ills Lodship—l put my-
self under the protection of the law.
Mr. BRODERIP (to defendant)—have you any thing
to say in answer to the charge ? Defendant—l don't
know that I said to Mr. Russell that I would desist
from writing.
Mr. BRODERIP (to the superintendent)—Are you
positive that he said he would desist from writing, but
would annoy his Lordship in the street ? Mr. Russell
—Quite positive.

_ .
Defendant said that he wished to be put in posses-
sion of the papers for which he had applied to his
Lordship, and which were withheld.
Mr. BRODERIP observed that if there were such
papers—and he did not assume that such was the case
—it weuld b no excuse in the eye of the law for
writing such letters as those produced to any subject
of the Queen.
Defendant suggested that if the case was adjourned
it would afford him an opportunity of having a pro-
fessional man, as his (defendant%) nervous system
was so deranged he could hardly collect his ideas.
Mr. I3RODERIP thought an adjournment unnecrs-
sary, as the simple question was whether defendant
had written these letters containing language amount-
ing to threats. Whatever cause he might have,
nothing could justify such letter?.
Defendant then entered into a rambling, incoherent
statement of conversations his father and himself had
had with the late Earl, and the support which his
(defendant'..) father gave the late Earl by voting for
lii;n af,er being throa n from a jaunting car in a
general fight with the partisans of the Opposing can.
(idate for Kilkenny, when in consequence of the in-
juries received, he was carried to the hustings by
fur men, and polled while in the greatest agony, and
in a dying state. He then declared that his family
had been driven from the Besborough estate, and
that the papers, with some letter?, for which he had •

111,.. Sergeant Channell appeared on behalf of the
plaintiff, and Mr. Wines for the defendant.
The COURT deferred giving judgment until they
had looked into the statutes relating to the imposition
of these duties, and we therefore postpone a more de-
tailed report.

COUNT OI EXCHEQUEP, April 24.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at 'Westminster, before Mr.
1.31r011 ALDERSON and Common Juries.)
There were 20 causes entered in the list for the
day. The only one of them which would justify a
notice was

INGRAM AND COOK V. STRANGE.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Bramwell appeared for the
plaintiffs. No counsel appeared for the defendant.
The plaintiffs were the proprietors of the London
illustrated News, and the defendant was the book-
, seller who has already been brought before the pub-
lic for pirating Prince Albert's etchings, and who,
Mr. Baron A'derson remarked at the close of this
case, seemed inclined to fly at all game high and low.
The action was brought for printing, publishing, and
selling exact copies of the cover, with its designs
and illustrations prepared by the plaintiffs, for bind-
ing up the half-yearly volume of their journal for
the half-year, from January to June, 1848. It was
stated that the defendant had been in the habit
of pre paring and selling great numbers of copies
of the covers prepared by the plaintiffs each half-
year for binding up their journal ; that when they
discovered the fraud they applied to the defendant
to desist ; that he refused ; that they then (in
January, 1849) obtained an injunction to restrain
him ; and, as u,ual, leave to bring an action, anal
commenced the action ; that in consequence of his
being unable to pay damages or costs they did not
wish to incur expense in proceeding against him, and
offered to his solicitors to waive all claim for damages
if he would undertake to abstain from inahating their
covers in future. It was also stated that this offer
was declined, and that the defendant, last January,
moved in Chancery to discharge the injunction, for
want of prosecution, and gave notice that if the
plaintiffs did not proceed at law, he would apply for
judgment of non pros, and that the plaintiffs were
by these proceedings forced to bring this action into
court.