The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-15 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
EX-PARTE JOHN RADCLIFFE.
Mr. HATHERTON moved, in this case, for a writ of
habeas corpus to bring up the bodies of two infants, who
were detained in the custody of their grandfather, Abra-
ham Turner. The present application was made on the
part of the father of the children, who stated in his affi-
davit that his wife and infant daughter Mary, aged two
years, went to the house of Turner, and that the infant
was detained in the custody of Turner, who refused to
give her up. On a subsequent occasion his second
daughter, Fanny, aged fuer years, was taken to Turner's
house without his knowledge, and also detained. The
wife of the deponent also went to the house of her father
and refused to come back, though he wrote to her to do
so, and to bring the children with her. The deponent
also stated that he treated his wife with kindness, as he
believed.—Application granted.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
PETTY V. WALKER AND OTHERS.
The action in this case was tried at York, when a ver-
dict was given for the plaintiff—damages, one farthing.
One of the defendants in the action, named Isaac
Ironside, moved this morning for a rule of Court calling
on Mr. Fretson, of Sheffield, the plaintiff's attorney, to
show cause why he should not refund the sum of
43Z 18s. 6d., paid to him, under protest, as costs in the
above action. The applicant's affidavit,upon which the pre-
sent motion was fonnded, stated that immediately after the
verdict had been returned, he tendered to the plaintiff's
solicitor one halfpenny (not having a farthing in his
pocket), but that this sum was refused by the latter.
The defendant further stated to the Bench that the Under
Sheriff told him that if the plaintiff's solicitor imagined
that the verdict obtained would carry costs he was mis-
taken, and that it was in consequence of his advice that
' be acted as he had done, after the finding of the jury.
For ten days after the trial the defendant heard nothing
of the action, but at the end of that time he was as-
tounded at receiving a letter from Mr. Fretson, dated
Queen-street, Sheffield, making a claim of 431. 18s. 6d.,
as above, accompanied with a threat of execution if the
amount were not paid within a specified time. In order
to avoid running any risk, defendant paid the sum, under
protest. He now applied to the Court, with a view of
recovering the amount. •
The defendant having, at the request of the Bench,
read the affidavit detailing the facts of the case,
The COURT granted the rule.

BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.)
A middle-aged man, named John Carlyle, living at 15,
Eaton-street, New-cut, Lambeth, was brought before
Mr. Jardine, charged with having stolen a sovereign, be-
longing to Mr. John Luff, under the following singular
circumstances :

The prosecutor was going over Waterloo-bridge on
the night previous, about half-past seven o'clock, and
stopped to pay the toll. He put his hand into his pocket
and pulled out a quantity of loose money, from which,
while selecting a sixpence, he let fall a sovereign on the
causeway. The prisoner was just coming up to the gate,
and on the prosecutor searching for his sovereign, he
assisted him, but, strange to say, it could not be found.
The prosecutor, having his suspicions, immediately asked
the prisoner if he got it ? But he replied he had not, nor
had he seen it. Prosecutor was certain no one else could
have picked it up, and determined to give him into cus-
tody. He accordingly called the policeman on duty
there, F $5, and gave the prisoner into custody. He
stoutly upheld his innocence, and offered every facility
for search ; but in his right-hand waistcoat pocket a
sovereign covered with dirt was soon found, to his great
discomfiture.

The prisoner expressed his ignorance of how it got
there, and said afterwards it was his own.

Mr. JARDINE said there was sufficient, without his
previous statement of not having a sovereign in his pos-
session at all, to commit him for trial.—Committed.

UNION-ITALL.-(THIS DAY.)

Thomas Greaves, John Graham, and William Bennett,
were charged with stealing 600 cwt. of iron, the property
of Sir John Rennie, at Bankside.

A policeman on duty on Bankside, at four o'clock, this
morning, hearing a noise on Sir John Rennie's premises,
proceeded there, and found the above quantity of iron
had been removed to an adjacent wharf. He also saw
three men running out of the yard towards the river-side,
and, on examination, the three prisoners were found con-
cealed in a barge close to the spot. Since the prisoner's
apprehension, another man, named Bryant, a marine
store-dealer, in Broadwall, was taken into custody, in the
act of removing a large quantity of iron in a cart from
his house, the greater portion of which was identified as
having been stolen from Sir John .Rennie's premises.
The prisoners were remanded.
Elizabeth Taylor and Sarah Corben, two young women,
recently in the service of Mr. Beale, a solicitor, of Maid-
stone, were charged with embezzling 40/., the property of
their master.

It appeared the prisoners were entrusted with the
above sum, at various times, for the purpose of paying off
the tradesmen's bills in the town. Instead, however, of
discharging the bills, they both absconded, and were
taken into custody in London, having taken lodgings on
this side of the water, and both were dressed out in the
first style of fashion.—The prisoners were remanded.

WILSON'S SCOTTISH ENTERTAINMENT, IN PERTH.—
The admirers of Scotia's minstrelsy enjoyed a luscious
treat on Monday evening, when Mr. Wilson, the
sweetest of her minstrels, made his appearance once
more in our theatre. We never heard that admired
vocalist in better voice. His command over its pecu-
liarly pliant texture, for the expression of the alterna-
tives of the humourous and the pathetic, was never
more conspicuous than on this occasion. In these days,
when he has so many imitators, not rivals—so many
who have entered the walk which he first and origi-
nally chalked out as his own—so many who furtively, in
a sense, have attempted to occupy the field which he first
so successfully cultivated—in these circumstances, we
Say, .t
is refreshing to listen to the melting, and the ex-
hilirating strains of the original Wilson, undiminished in
his powers, but rather, as evidenced in his exertions of
Monday evening, soaring above himself.—Perth Paper,
of Nov. 13.

Prime mutton is now selling at Wotton-under-
Edge, Gloucestershire, at 4id. per lb. The contract for
mutton for the the Dursley Union for the next three
months was taken a few days,ago at 3id. per lb,—Bristol
Mirror.

Mr. KELLY submitted that such a case could not apply
to an action brought against the officer executing the
warrant, although it might if they were suing the House
of Commons, or the Speaker ; but he apprehended that,
as the action would be for the imprisonment, and not for
the conviction, the setting forth the conviction would not
be a sufficient justification.

MY. Justice COLERIDGE—I do not say so ; but is it
not a general notion—l do not say whether right or
wrong— but is it not a general notion that a bad warrant
may be aided by a good conviction ?
Mr. KELLY apprehended not. The party sought his
remedy against the party arresting him for the impri-
sonment, and not for the conviction. If a magistrate
possessed the power on conviction by parole directions
without the intervention of any written document, of
ordering imprisonment, then the conviction might justify
such imprisonment ; but if it was necessary that the
warrant should be made in writing, and such warrant
should be found to be bad, then the party would have
been illegally committed, and would be entitled to his
remedy. Now, what were the averments in the third
and fourth pleas? They were—that the plaintiff, having
been summoned to appear at the bar of the House of
Commons, failed to attend, and that thereupon an order
was made that he should be brought to the bar.
(The case had not concluded when we went to press.)

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court this day, took the demurrer paper, the
cases in which were interesting only to the profession.

(Sittings at NiSi Prius.)
The Court sat also as Nisi Prius, in the Sessions
House, Westminster.

BENFIAN V. PIDDING.
This was an action for goods sold and delivered, and
would possess no peculiar interest, but for what was
characterised as an " artful dodge" on the part of the
defendant.

The plaintiff is an ironmonger and general dealer,
and supplied the defendant with goods upon a running
account, for which he charged in his bill the sum of
231. Payment having been delayed longer than was
agreeable to the plaintiff, he brought this action.
The defendant paid into Court 51., pleading to the re-
mainder of the claim " not indebted."
Mr. JAMES, for the plaintiff; put in evidence of the
goods being supplied. He remarked that the defendant,
who was not represented in Court, had been advised by
some artful practitioner, more cunning than wise, to pay
in the sum of 51., in order to bring the debt below 201.,
and thus escape arrest and imprisonment. But by a re-
cent decision in the Court of Exchequer, it was clear
that this manoeuvre would not avail him.
Verdict for the plaintiff in the whole amount.
CLEVELAND V. WALTER.
This was an action of ejectment, under very'curious:cir-
cumstances.

The principal was Miss Cleveland, who deposed that
her father was a tripe-dealer, formerly residing in
Tower-street, St. Giles's, but carrying on business
at present in Silver-street, Golden-square. He quitted
the house in Tower-street about twelve years ago, and
left a relation in possession of the premises. Since
that, Mr. Walter, who had married a distant re-
lation of plaintiff's, was put into possession of
the business, with an arrangement to this effect:
the plaintiff was to supply defendant with the
stock in trade, and:to give him one-half of the profits;
and also to allow him 11. per week independent of that
commission. That once in two or three weeks she, in
place of her father, used to settle with defendant, that
she received from him the rent which he had received
from persons lodging in the house. He used also to pay
her the whole of the receipts of the business, and she re-
turned one half of the profits to him. He used to at-
tend at her father's house to settle his acconnts with
him, but on one occasion he sent word to her that he was
unable to come to plaintiff's house, being unwell. In
consequence of this she went to the house in Tower-
street, when he told her that he had no money to give
her. He afterwards refused to settle with any one but
Mr. Cleveland, and subsequently refused to give any ac-
count of the business, whereupon plaintiff gave him no-
tice to quit the premises, which he defendant refused to do.
Several other witnesses were called, who corroborated
the above evidence. It was also proved that defendant,
having been obliged to become insolvent, spoke of plain-
tiff as his employer in his schedule.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, who appeared for plaintiff,
laid great stress on the latter fact.
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, with imme-
diate execution.