The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, May 31.
The Lord Chancellor sat to-day shortly after ten o'clock.
IN THE MATTER OF DYCE SOMBRE, A LUNATIC.
Our readers will recollect that this matter, which was men-
tioned yesterday, was ordered to stand over till this morning.
Upon the case being called on,
Mr. BETHELL, who appeared as counsel for the committee
of the person of the lunatic, Mrs. Dyce Sombre, stated that
his client, considered it was liecessary and right before the
petition was heard, that the medical gentlemen who had
given evidence before the Commissioner, should have a fur-
ther oppprpinity pf seeing ME.,Dyce Sombre.
Mr. WALroi,E,-w-ho was counsel together with Sir Thomas
Wilde and Mr. Wakefield for Mr. Dyce Sombre, could not in
the absence of his leaders 'give any undertaking, and if any
application was to be made he must request the Court to
allow it to stand over.
Some considerable discussion then took place, after which
it was finally arranged that the hearing of the petitioner
should peremptorily take place on the first day the Court sat
after the and of the present term.
The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered that, in the meantime,
every requisite accommodation and comfort should be afforded
to Mr. Dyce S6mbre.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PRINCESS BARLATLNSKI, A LUNATIC.I
This matter was ordered to stand over, for the purpose of
seeing whether some arrangement could not be made to place
the unfortunate individual, the subject of the Commission, in
a private asylum.
The COURT then proceeded with the other lunatic petitions
in the paper.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)

MANSIOA-110USE.

George Scott, apprentice to his father, appeared before
the Lord Mayor to answer the complaint of James Ed-
ward Cutler, beadle of the Watermen's Company,
charging him with having, in a skiff, in the river Thames, '
on Sunday, the 28th of May, at London bridge, eight
passengers, the said skiff being licensed to carry six
passengers only; and John Williamson was sum moved
by the same party for allowing his skiff to be worked in
the river Thames, on Sunday, the 19th of May, without
first having obtained a license from the Court of the
Company of Watermen and Lightertnen.
Mr. Cooper, the solicitor to the Company, attended for
the prosecution in each case, and Mr. Wolff, from Mr.
Flower's office, appeared for the first defendant.
The subject caused great interest in consequence of
the late loss of life in the river.
In the case of John Scott, which was first heard,
Mr. Wolff took a technical objection to the summons,
which, he contended, was in the form of an indictment,
and ought to be as accurately worded.
The LORD MAYOR—The precise charge against Scott
is that he carried eight persons instead of six. All I
require is evidence to that fact.
Mr. Cooper proceeded to call witnesses, without inak-
ing any comments.
W. E. Hone, beadle to the CoMpany deposed, that on
the day specified in the summons, between 7 and B.in the
evening, he saw Scott row four men and four women in
the skiff, No. 3,524 ashore. The boat was not licensed
to carry more than six. Witness saw those in the boat
pay the lad who acted as waterman.
The witness, upon his cross-examination, stated that he
had seen the boat for about three minutes, and that the
ages of the passengers varied from 14 t 18 years.
Mr. NVoltf now would she not carry fourteen passen-
gers comfortably? Witness—Certainly not ; neither
comfortably nor safely.
Mr. Banyon, the clerk of the Company, stated that the
boat was licensed on the 12th of May, 1842, by George
Scott, the elder, to carry six passengers. She was li-
censed to carry six, as that number was the most she
could carry safely.
Cross-examined—lt was by measurement the boats
were regulated as to the numbers they were allowed
to carry.
Mr. Wolff—Have you never known a boat able to
carry eight licensed to carry no more than six? Wit-
ness—No; I think not.
Mr. Cooper—That is my case.
Mr. Wolff submitted that there was no case at all to
go to the Lord Mayor, as it at least ought to have been
proved that the father of the defendant was a freeman
of the Waterman's Company.
The LORD MAYOR—It has been proved to be a licensed
boat, and the Waterman's Act says that the occupier or
occupiers shall be liable to penalty for breach of the
regulations. The penalty attached to transgressions in
this case is stated not to exceed forty shillings. Nothing
can be more clear than this case.
Mr. Wolff trusted that his Lordship would treat the
young man leniently, as the violation of' the Act was
certainly committed in ignorance of the law. The boat
in question was large enough to hold eight or ten per-
sons, and that number, he understood, had gone up the
river in her, and returned in perfect safety.
The LORD MAYOR—That is an instance of excessive
violation. The state of the water might have been such
that a large number could have gone in the boat. Now
that the river is in almost perpetual agitation by the
passing of steamers, the danger to life is imminent. I
dare say that in Chelsea Reach many a life has been lost
in consequence of over-lading. Some of the boats in
use are so slight that a man's foot will actually pass
through them. It was but the other day a person who
fell overboard was drowned, because the other per Son in
the boat could not offer assistance to him without en-
dangering his own life by overturning her.
Mr. Banyon observed that the Waterinen's Company
had no authority over wager-boatS, which were made of
the most flimsy materials.
Mr. Cooper—There are bye-laws now before the Court
of Aldermen,. which are calculated to remedy the evil
arising from the use of boats which cannot be safely
used in the present condition of the river.
The Loan MAYOR—AII cases of this description, in-
volving the hazard of human liFe, must be looked to in

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 30.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. BLAKE AND TYE.
The following is a fuller report of this case than we gave in
our paper of yesterday :
This was an information filed by her Majesty's Attorney-
General against the defendant, for a conspiracy to defraud
the Customs revenue. The defendant Blake was a landing
waiter at the Customs. The defendant Tye had been a
partner in the house of Sherer and Tye, Custom-house
agents. 'That house had been the agents for a great many
firms in the City, and as such had received their imported
goods, entered them at the Custom-house, declared their
value, and paid the duty on them. The case was tried at the
sittings after last Hilary Term, before Lord Denman, at
Guildhall, when it appeared that these parties had conspired
'to defraud the revenue, and.had effected their purpose
through the means of Blake.hiaking false " sight entries," by
which the goods were allowed to pass, on payment f the
sort of duty which the description of goods mentioned in the
sight entry required, when in fact they were properly liable
to a higher rate of duty. The fact of a conspiracy or com-
bination between these parties having been fully established,
two pieces of evidence were offered by the Crown. The first
was that of an entry made by Tye in the books of
Sherer and Tye, to correspond with the sight entry of
the same goods at the Custom-house, and relating to a
transaction that formed one of the acts done in consequence
of the alleged conspiracy. The other was the butt or
counterfoil of a cheque given by Tye to Blake, which de-
scribed the amount in the cheque as Blake's share of the
profit made on the transactions in which they had been en-
gaged. A part of the money received from the bankers was
proved to have been afterwards paid away by Blake to
tradesmen and tax-gatherers, at his residence. The counter •
foil contained a statement of the items which made up the
amount for which the cheque was given, divided that amount
into two equal portions, and then described the cheque as
being drawn to meet the sum so found upon the division to
be due to Blake. This evidence was objected to at the trial,
on the ground that both were acts done by one defendant,
not then on his trial (Tye had absconded), were not proved
to have been known to Blake, or assented to by him, and
could not therefore be now produced to affect hisn. Lord
Denman, on being pressed by the Attorney-General, ad-
mitted both pieces of evidence, but expressed his strong
doubts whether the butt of the cheque was properly re-
ceivable, since it appeared to him to have the character,
not of an act done in furtherance of the conspiracy, but
of a mere statement of a fact after the conspiracy had
taken effect. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and
a rule had since been obtained to set aside the
verdict, and have a new trial, on the ground that these two
pieces of evidence had been wrongly admitted • at the trial,
for that the first of them must be considered an act done by
one person, without any proof of the concurrence or assent of
the other, and that the butt or counterfoil of the cheque was a
mere declaration made by one of the parties, which was
clearly incapable of being used to fix the charge upon the
other.
The Soracrron-GENERAL and Mr. F. Pamocx now showed
cause against the rule.
Mr. CocKBURN andllr. WARREN, in support of the rule,
were stopped by
Lord DEsotas—l do not entertain any doubt upon the
first point. My impression was at the trial that the evidence
there was admissible, because it was evidence of something
done in the course of a transaction then going on,
which mast be laid before the jury in proof of the, per-
formance of the act charged, and which would not, per-
haps, be possible to be proved in any other manner.
But with respect to the second matter, I felt at the trial
that there was at least considerable doubt on the subject, and
I only admitted it when the Attorney-General pressed it on
me. The principle on which I thought it possible that this
evidence might be admissible was, that it was evidence of an
act done, or necessary to be done, in order to give effect to
the conspiracy. But it is clear that that was not so in fact,
for full effect might have been given without any reference
whatever to what was done with this sum of money. The
writing on the biitt of the cheque was the same as if the
party had stated in a memorandum thathe had paid the sum
of 821. to the defendant, in order to put him in possession of
the fruits of the conspiracy—a statement which would clearly
have been inadmissible. This is an act, or rather a state-
ment by one of the parties, not tending to the advancement
of the general object of the conspiracy. If we were to re-
ceive evidence of this kind—a mere statement of one of the
conspirators as to what had been their object—we should often
find ourselves subjected to many causes of embarrassment by
his making statements which would go to exonerate himself
from all blame, and to throw the whole guilt upon the
In the case of the King v. Watson the circumstances were en-
tirely different, for there the Court required to be satisfied
that the papers had been prepared in furtherance of the ob-
ject of the conspiracy, and had not been put into the room
after the prisoner was taken into custody, and being satisfied
on that point, admitted the evidence. The paper there was
more connected with the object of the conspiracy than was
the paper in the present case, and it was in existence before
the object of the conspiracy was put in a course of attain-
tnent. I am, therefore, of opinion, upon principle, that a
mere statement made by one conspirator when in conference
ivith.a third person, or when he thinks proper to do that by
himself, which is not necessary for carrying out the object of
the conspiracy, is not evidence admissible to effect any other
of the parties charged.
Mr. Justice PATTESON agreed with the Lord Chief Justice
on both points: There was no doubt that a conspiracy must
be established before the act of any one individual mild be
given in evidence to affect any other individual charged as
being engaged in ithe conspiracy. When that was esta-
blished, evidence of an act done by one to further the ad
vancement of the conspiracy might be given to affect the
others. But here the butt of the cheque had not been pre-
pared to further the object of the conspiracy, but was merely
a declaration made after the conspiracy had taken effect. It
was, the fore, not admissible in evidence.
Mr. Justice Wiwasts was entirely of the same opinion on
both points. With respect to the first, he agreed that it was
impossible to state any general rule as to the proof that must
be given in every case of conspiracy, but this at least was
clear, that when the fact of a conspiracy had been established,
the detached acts of each of the parties done in furtherance
of the conspiracy might be given in evidence. But such acts
must be clearly in furtherance of the conspiracy. Evidence
of acts done when all the conspiracy was at an end was
clearly inadmissible. These two rules decided the present
application. The entry in the books was clearly an act done
in furtherance of the conspiracy, and was, therefore, admis-
sible in evidence. The butt or counterfoil of the cheque was
no more than a declaration made by one of the parties when
the conspiracy had been completed and was at an end, and
was, therefore, not admissible in evidence.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE was of the same opinion. No evi-
dence of an act done by a co-:conspirator could be received,
unless such act was done in advancement of the object of the
conspiracy. No such evidence could be given of an act done
fter the conspiracy had been completed.—Rule absolute.
MAY 31.
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court took the special paper to-day, and was engaged
the whole morning in hearing arguments relating solely to
mere technical points of practice.

the spirit of the most searching investigation. As
this is the first offence of the defendant I shall be satis-
fied with inflicting the penalty of ten shillings and six-
pence. In every other instance proved I shall inflict the
full penalty of forty shillings and costs.
The defendant paid the penalty, and said that nothing
should ever induce him to break the law again.
The LORD MAYOR mentioned to Mr. Cooper that the
reckless manner in which those who had the manage•
ment of the steam-vessels which plied in the river from
London to Gravesend called aloud for prompt inter-
ference. On one of the late holidays a steam-vessel was
crowded, and a showt4 having come on many of them on
deck crowded into the cabins. Fine weather having re-
turned a great many more rushed into the vessel, which
then became crowded to suffocation. The consequence
was that another vessel was obliged to relieve the over-
burdened vessel of about 150 of her passengers.
Mr. Cooper Said the bye-laws to which he had alluded,
and which he trusted would immediately pass, were cal-
culated to remedy that evil, as well as ,the other mis-
chief to which his Lordship': attention had been called.
John Williamson, the man in whose boat the children
were drowned at London-bridge on Sunday, the 19th of
May, was then charged.
Mr. Cooper stated that in this case the penalty was
twenty shillings fur working or allowing to be worked a
boat not licensed. The difference between the two
cases was, that in the former case the occupier or occu-
piers of a licensed boat were made liable, in the latter
the owner or owners of the boat not being licensed were
liable, and the difficulty was to find the owner. As a
coroner's inquest was being held on the bodies already
found, the proprietor became known.
The defendant made a rambling unintelligible set of,
excuses in which be endeavoured to thro* the blame
upon the officers of the Watermen's Company for not
having interfered with other people, whose boats were
constantly crowded, as if the • servants of the Company
could be present at all points where the public are in
the habit of embarking.
The LORD MAYoß—Have all the bodies of the chil-
dren been found?—Mr. Cutler (the officer of the Corn
parry) said that three had been found, and that one fe-
male was still missing.
The LORD MAYOR—I shall in this case inflict the full
penalty and costs.
The defendant threw himself upon the mercy of the
Lord Mayor, and declared that he had a wife and
,six
children to provide for, and little or no employment.
The LORD MAYOR having been informed that the in-
quest was still sitting, said, that as in all probability the
defendant would be a Sufferer by the verdict of the jury,
in the shape of a deodand, he should limit the penalty to
ten shillings and costs; and his Lordship ordered that if
the amount. was not. inimediately.paid, a distress war-
rant should be issued against the goods and chattels of
the defendant. - -
Mr. Banyon—For seventeen years the Watermen and
Lightermen's Company have been endeavoering to ac-
complish the object of regulating the numbers to be re-
ceived on board the steamers, and we trust that we shall
receive your Lordship's assistance to effect so great a
public good.
The LORD MAYOR—I. shall certainly bring forward
the question at the.next Court of Aldermen.
An experienced old smuggler, named Thomas Myers,
was charged by. the.solicitor to. the Customs with having
been found in possession of five-pounds of tobacco.
The defendant, in a whining tone, pleaded guilty.
• The solicitor to the Customs informed the Lord
Mayor, and Alderman Thomas Wood, who sat in jurisdic-
tion with his Lordship, that the smugglers were under the
impression that; if they. ' '*ere- Caught with no more
tobacco In their poiseSSion at one time than five pounds'
weight, the Act ''
tParliament could not touch them for
a heavier fine than 51. .. The _consequence of such an im-
pression was that they sometimes made, each of them, a
dozen visits to steamers and other receptacles, and
smuggled goods every day, supposing that, if detected,
all they would have to pay could not exceed that sum.
The Commissioners of Customs, however, had the
power, by the 6th and 7th of William, to inflict
a penalty of, 1001. for every offence of smuggling,
however small the quantity smuggled, as had been
lately decided in .the Court of Exchequer. The
defendant in this ease very plainly showed, upon
being apprehended, that he was one of those who acted
under the mistake of supposing that he would have no
more than. Si. to pay. -" Oh," said he, " I am under the
weight." As the old smugglers were making great ex-
ertions in their trade, it was the determination of the
Commissioners to go for the. full penalty of 1001. in all
cases, however small the quantity smuggled by the indi-
vidual.samTeheviLewoaonf YqOußestaiontLd
wAhlidcehrmhaadn Th
e.
eno HOD
taken o
ho
yk
thethe
MtheA
solicitor to the Customs, and his Lordship struck terror
into the defendant by. telling him that he was fined 100/,
and that lie must stay in prison until that amount should
be paid.
It is but fair to mention that the statement which was
made to the Lord Mayor a few days ago, that 23,0001b5.
weight of tobacco had been lately smuggled in Dutch
cheeses into this country, was not made by Mr. Davis, or
any other person in the employment of her Majesty's
Customs.
The defendant was committed to prison. •
MARYLEBONE.
Daniel Wright, the young man who had been remanded
from Friday last, on a charge of having received 390/. from
the banking-house of Sir Claude Scott and Co., Cavendish-
square, by means of a forged cheque purporting to have
been drawn on the Bank of England by William Pulsford,
Esq., of 11, HVe-park-terrace, in favour of Mr. G. Red•
mayne, the eminent silk mercer of New Bond-street, was
placed at the bar for final examination this day.
Baron Larpent, General Lodwick, Admiral Cun- The evidence taken on the previous occasion, and which
ningham, Sir Thomas and Lady Butler, Sir Joseph Radcliffe, was fully reported in The Sun of May 25, was then read
Dr. and Lady King, &c., were among the passengers that em- over. A brief recapitulation of the principal facts connected
barked at Blackwall, en Thursday, on board the General with the case may ,be given. The prisoner called at Sir
Steam Navigation Cornpany'rs steam-ship Soho, for Antwerp. Claude Scott'S bank on the 3d May, and presenting a cheque
THE ALLEGED AIUnDER: AND RODBERY AT RAT- for 3901., said that Mr, Redmayne would feel obliged if it
CLIFF.—On Thursday Mr. Baker and a jury sat for the fifth were cashed for him. Mr. Taylor, one of the clerks in the
time at the Town of Whitby public-house, Napping-wall,
_to , bank, as Mr.'lttalmayne had an account there; did so, and
determine the cause of death of Luke Williams. Only one Paid him in six 50/. notes, four 20/., and ten sovereigns in geld.
witness was examined on Thursday, a charity schoolboy, flamed On the succeeding morning a messenger from the Bank of
Lane, who stated that on the afternoon of Sunday, the 19th ;England returned the cheque as a forged one ; and on the
inst., hearing a disturbance in Bruns evening of .the same day Mr. Pulsford called, and stated that
there, and saw the windows of .Nicholsonwick-place, he went
' s
house broken,.and the handwriting was not his. Information was given to the
looking through he observed the prisoner Horsted kicking an Police, and one of the officers in the Detective force traced the
old man, who was lying on the floor. He also saw Horsted prisoner to Birmingham, and subsequently
.back to London,
jump on the lower part of the old man's stomach, so violently and at last succeeded in taking him, into custody.in the lion
his heels slipped off the body, and he nearly fell back- ; toria Hotel, near the railway terminus at Euston-square,
wards. There were present a short man and two women, ; where he had lived with a companion (a, female) for a few
but they did not interfere in any way. The Coroner, this days. In his possession was 5/. 4s. lid., and in a bOX belong•
being the whole of the evidence, read over the &positions of ing to him was a further sum of seventy sovereigns,' and a
the four previous inquiries, and pointed out what constituted handsome gold. watch and appendages, besides several other
murder and manslaughter. The jury then retired, and after articles of jewellery. - There being no evidence against the
an absence of four hours and a half, returned to the inquest . female she was discharged'on the first examination. It was
room, saying that they wished the inquiry to be once more stated on thatpeastien t.liat the prisoner had run up a bill at
adjourned, in order to see whether evidence could not be the hotel of a6l. in he f„w days he had been there. '
found to implicate some of the other parties as well as The evidence taken this day was of very little-moment.
Mr. Arthur Maitland, from the Bunk 'oftEngland, said that
Horsted.. The inquiry was accordingly adjourned till Thurs.,
day next.' • • - - it was the practice of the Bank to pay no cheques excepting

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 30.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE DISPUTED WINNER OF THE DERBY.
PEEL. P. WEATHERBY AND ANOTHER,

Mr. OGLE was instructed to apply to the Court for an
interpleader rule in this case on behalf of the defendants.
The application was made on affidavit, which disclosed to
the Court that the defendants were the stakeholders of a
large sum of money, which was run for at the last " Derby
race," and that a horse called Running Rein having come in
first, and another, named Orlando, the second, the present
plaintiff, Colonel Peel, had claimed the stakes on behalf of
Orlando, and Mr. Wood on behalf of Running Rein. The
deponent then went on to state that a writ of summons was
served by Colonel Teel. on the 25th inst., and that on the
28th .another writ *as.seryed on the defendants at the suit
of Mr. Wood; ingte Cotirt r; Common Pleas Under these
eircumstatees, as the defendants were most anxious to pre-
serve their tharaCter for impartiality, they had deemed it
their duty to apply to both the Courts for their protection
under the interpleader statute, in order that the real parties
to the matter in dispute might have an opportunity of
testing the merits of their respective claims to the stake in
question.
The COURT—Your clients are ready to bring the money
into Court to abide the event ?
Mr. OGLE—Oh, certainly. A similar application will be
made to the Court of Common Pleas, the writ in which Court
was issued subsequently to that in the present action.
The CHIEF BARON—You niay take your rule.

SPRING ASSIZES, 1844.
The Judges of the different Courts met in the Exchequer
Chamber on Thursday morning, and chose their respective Cir-
cuits on the ensuing Spring Assizes. The following is the
arrangement :
Midland—Lord Chief Justice Denman and Mr. Justice
Coltman.
Oxford—Lord Chief Justice Tindal and Mr. Justice Erskine.
Northern—The Lord Chief Baron Pollock and Mr: Justice
Cresswell.
Home—Mr. Baron Parke and Mr. Baron Gurney.
Western—Mr. Justice Pattesoa and Mr. Justice Wigli tman.
Norfolk—Mr. Baron Alderson and Mr. JuStice Williams.
North Wales--Mr. Justice Coleridge.

South Wales—Mr. Baron Rolfe.
bra.t beJcuhsamticeAris.aule remains in town, and will attend to busi
ness