The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-06 00:00:00

NOVEMBER 6, 1850.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, Nov, 5.
(Sittings in Banco.)
MACGREGOR V. GALWORTHY.
In this case, which was trio 1 at the sittings for Mid-
scx in June last, ,fore Lord Campbell, a verdict
passed for the plaintiff, damages 40/. It was an action
brought against the High Bailiff of the Bloomsbury
County Court. The defendant had obtained a judg-
ment in that County Court against the plaintiff for 151.,
with 31. 9s. casts. Execution issued in the usual man-
ner on this judgment, and the bailiff proceeded to the
plaintiff's residence, but being denied admission, he got
iu at the window by means of a chair. Hence the pre-
sent action.

Mr. WHATELY, Q.C., now moved for a rule to show
cause, first, why the verdict should not be set aside and
a new trial had; and, secondly, why the whole proceed-
ings should not be wholly set aside on the ground that
the plaintiff wag a married woman at the time of the
action, which incapacitated her from bringing such an
action. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read
certain affi,lavits to pr ye that the plaintiff was the wife
of a person named Gotland, and bad taken alvantkze of
her privilege as a married woman on the commence-
ment of the proceedings in the County Court.
The CounT thereupon granted a rule to show cause,
and in the meantime ordered the whole proceedings le
the Court below to be stayed, and to abide the issue of
the rule nisi.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 5.

SIBURY V. WILKINS.-FRAUDULENT BILL TRANSACTION.

In this cane Mr. CREASY moved for a rule calling on
the plaintiff and another person to show cause why an
order of Mr. Justice Coleridge to stop the proceedings
in this case, upon payment of certain sums, should not
be set aeide with costs. The Learned Counsel said that
the defendant was a clergyman, from whom an accept-
ance of 1501. had been obtained in consequence of a
money lending advertisement, by a person calling him-
self " James Gardener." The defendant did not get a
farthing for his acceptance, but was sued fur the amount
of it by the plaintiff when the bill became due. Before
the bill was presented, Gardener wrote to the defendant
to say he had obtained 701. for the bill, but had applied it
to his own purposes. A correspondence followed. which
ended in Gardener's suggesting that the defendant
should employ a solicitor whom he (Gardener) named,
and by whose advice the judge's order in question was
given. The Learned Counsel put in several affidavits to
show that the transaction was a fraudulent one as against
his elisnt, and the Court granted a rule nisi.

said ho had sold spoons to Mr. Argent between the 23d
of N ,vember and the Bth of December.
Mr. Thomas Brockleby, carver and gilder. of No. 13,
Itlthbonc-place, said, I was at Epsom on 'Arednesdas,
iho 231 of May, the Derby-day, and had a gold watch
with mo. I missed it from my right-hand waistcoat-
pocket immediately after the races were over. This is
the watch. I saw it in Scotland-yard, in consequence of
a communication which I bad with the police. It is a
Geneva watch, and I know it by the name of the maker,
" Dubois." Ido not know the number, but I purchased
the watch at Machin and Debenham's quarterly sale in
the winter of 1849, and I paid for it immediately. A
gentleman of the name of Sanger had worn it a few
days, and can alt.° identify it.
Mr. Lewis—What sort of a chain was there to the
watch ? Witness—lt was a sort of India-rubber chain.
Mr. Lewis—Will you swear that you did not drop it
out of your pocket? Witness—No; but I lost it when
a great rush was made. It was opposite the Grand
Stand. I missed it about three or four minutes after I
had looked at it.

Mr. Lewis—What is there in the watch which enables
you to identify it? Witness—l had the steel hands re-
moved, and gold ones substituted. I paid 41. 193. for it.
I had lent it to Mr. Sanger, who was to purchase it of
me; and ho returned it to me about a week before the
races. I never inquired its value.
Mr. Lewis—When you lost the watch, where was the
chain? Witness—lt was suspended from my ruck.
Mr. Lewis—Was it cut? Witness—No; the chain
was perfect, es was the ring attached to it, from which
the watch was suspended. Tho ring was steel. I was
surprised how I could have lost the watch at all, as the
ring and guard were entire.
_ _

Mr. Le-is—Dit you advertiie your watch? Witness
—No.

Mr. Lewis—Were you not unable to give the police-
man a description of the watch? Witness—l said it was
a Geneva watch, engine-turned.
Alderman Gibbs—Am I to understand that you do
not know whether you dropped the watch or not?
Witness—l am quite sure 'hat I did not drop it. I
placed it in my pocket a few minutes before I lost it.
Mr. Sanger, a barrister's clerk—Mr. Brockleby is a
friend of mine. I had a watch from him, which I was
about to purchase about six weeks before the Derby day.
I wore it three or four days. I do not know the number,
but I believe the maker's name is " Dubois." I observed
it particularly, as I was going to purchase it, and there
was something peculiar about it. The words " Dubois,
Geneva," were very unskilfully engraved, almost
scratched upon it. I did not notice any other peculi-
arity. When I had it it had steel hands. I believe this
to be the watch.

Cross-examined—l was to pay 5/. for the watch. I
was at the Derby with Mr. Brcckleby, and was standing
by his side at the time of the loss. I observed him place
his watch in or somewhere about his waistcoat pocket.
I will not swear that he put it into his pocket. In fact
he was timing the horses with it, and probably his at-
tention was as mach attracted to the horses as to the
watch. He stooped under the ropes.
Mr. Lewis—Could he not have lost it in getting under
the ropes? Witness—l do not think it possible. How
the watch could have been got away from the chain I
cannot tell. Neither the chain nor the ring by which
the watch had been fastened to it had been broken.

Mr. Lewis—Will you swear that he might not, while
he had the watch in his hand, have removed it himself
from the chain ? Witness—l am quite sure he did not
remove it himself. There was much crowding at the
time upnn us both.
Re-examined by Mr. Powell—You have been asked
whether the watch might not have fallen down while
he was stooping. Suppose it had fallen, would it not
have been trampled upon, very much to its injury ?
Witness—l thick it must have been smashed altogether.
Mr. Lewis—That would depend upon the rapidity
with which it might have been picked up by an ob-
server.

Witness—lt must have been pressed by the faet of the
crowd rushing along,
Luigi Balerna, of North-gate, Halifax, Yorkshire,
jeweller, said—On the night of the 13th or morning of
the 14th of July, I lost above a hundred gold and silver
watches, upwards of four hundred finger-rings, five pairs
of gold spectacles, and other property. There were
four new and and one old pair of spectacles, and I have
since seen the old pair ; I know it from having worn
it myself, and I have had them ten years in stock. I
hav,, occasionally worn them in the shop and in my
mum, and I should know them if I saw them again.
They are red old-fashioned gold. They have been
mended near the temple. The spectacles produced are
the old pair Iso lost. I'll swear to their being mine.
Cross. examined—l deal a little in second-hand plate,
and change articles with different makers in London. I
know of whom I buy them in general. IdO not melt
plate myself.
Miss Emily Coates, of No. 25, High-street, White-
chapel, said—Mrs. Freeman, of No. 8, Grove-terrace,
Kentish-town, is my sister. The ring produced is her
ring. I have a similar ring. There is engraved upon
my sister's ring " Wm. Thompson, obit September,
1836, aged 22."
Cross-examined—Many of the Thompson family are
now alive. My father gave three similar rings away in
memory of my uncle. My other sister has the third
ring. The ring produced was lost about twelve
months ago.

Jonathan Whicher, sergeant (27 A)—l was in com-
pany with Inspector Lund and Sergeant Shaw on the
2d of October, at the time the prisoner was apprehended.
I afterwards assisted in searching his pl*ce in Barbican,
and amongst other watches in a drawer in the back shop
I found the watch produced (referred to by Mr.
Brockkby).
. _

Cross-examined—We afterwards cleared the shop out
and took ;he property to the station-house. There were
a great many spoons. Tbero were four officers engaged
in the case. Two were left in the house.

Inspector Lund—Amongst the property I found at
the prisoner's house were the gold spectacles and the
mourning ring produced. They were in the,back shop.
Cross-examined—l have the list of the property which
we removed from the prisoner's premises. There are, I
should say, 1,000 spoons, some hundreds of watch move-
ments, perhaps thirty watches, and between sixty and
seventy rings. There were, I should say, twelve or four-
teen mourning rings. We have had, I dare say, a hun-
dred or two inquiries about the goods. The value of the
property we took may be batween 3,0001. and 4,0001. I
have heard that Mr. Sirrell has carried on business there
thirty or forty years.
Alderman Gums then consented to take bail for the
appearance of Mr. Sirrell-upon a future day, when the
investigation will be resumed.