The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-13 00:00:00

GREEN V. CLA.RICE.

This was an action for assault brought by Mr. Green,
lurgeon, residing in Curzon-street, May-fair, and the
proprietor of the Parliamentary Chronicle, against Mr.
Clarke, hairdresser, keeping a shop in Vigo-street. It
appeared that in December last Mr. Green, accompa-
nied by one of his sons, and Mr. Seelim, a bullion mer-
chant, went into Mr. Clarke's shop for the purpose of
laving his hair cut, his son Henry waiting outside.
After having been satisfactorily attended to by Jones,
cne of Mr. Clarke's assistants, Mr. Green descended
from the hairdressing-room into the shop to pay, Mr.
Clarke and his sister being in the shop. Mr. Green
threw down is., remarking that the charge was greater
than usual. Mr. Clarke took up the money, saying that
was their invariable charge, to which Mr. Green replied
that he customarily paid only 6d. The defendant then
averred that he had never taken a sixpence of Mr.
Green, who retorted that he had always paid
lim, and that the present instance was an im-
position. Mr. Clarke then came out from behind
the cdunter into the shop, and Mr. Green repeated
Ilia assertion that he had always paid him 6d. This
statement was again negatived by the defendant, and the
plaintiff replied, " You as much as tell me what I say
as false." The defendant rejoined, "If you say that, I
My it is untrue." Green retorted, " You're a liar."
Clarke then said, " Thank you, sir." Green added, " I
tell yea boldly and plainly that you area liar,
sand if you were in my house I'd kick you out." Clarke
peed, Perhaps you would like me to serve you the
sante- Green said, " Neither you nor all your men
could do it, and if you'll come into the street I'll lick
you." Clarke then turned round the corner and said,
Perhaps you will walk out if you please," and Green
nourished his umbrella in Clarke's face, and Henry
Laurie, one of Mr. Clarke's assistants, opened the door.
Clarke then touched Green with two of his fingers and
pointed to the door. Mr. Green not moving to go out,
(01a:ke gave him a push or shove, on which Mr. Green's
foot slipped, and he reeled zig-zag all across the road,
and fell on Lis hands.
A witness for the defence said he jumped up like a
harlequin and was not hurt at all. Jones, who cut Mr.
Green's hair, then went up to him, and Green spit seve-
ral times in his face. A person who was standing by
eg the time Green was pushed from the shop remarked
that it served him quite right. There was no one within
100 yards at the time, and Mr. Green made no com-
plaint, and walked away by himself. When the police-
man came up, Green said, " Look at my eye." The
policeman replied, "Oh yes, I see your eye ; there's
imothing the matter with it."
Fleury Green, the plaintiff's son, who was standing
outside waiting for his father, said that he saw his father
somiog out of the shop, and as soon as he got off the
step of the door, Clarke stepped forward and gave his
lather a violent blow on the cheek from behind, which
knocked hint down, so that he was unable to get up.
He asked him what he meant by treating his father so,
when he replied he deserved to be killed, and a stranger
said it was for calling Clarke a liar. His father seemed
to be in great pain.
Mr. Clarke's assistant saidithat Mr. Green was not ac-
eustomed always to speak softly, as if to an old lady.
A young man had come out of the shop afterwards,
and swore that Mr. Green did not spit in Jones's face ;
Air. Green's face was so disfigured that he could not be
:seen for a week afterwards. The policeman did not like
to take Clarke into custody as it was his own house, and
seut up.
Dr. rdens, said he knew
Collier, physician, Spring-ga
Zirr. Green as a surgeon eighteen years ago, and attended
Ilia) next day ; a severe injury had lacerated several
blood- yessels, and he was suffering under symptoms of
contusioi; of the brain ; two of the ribs in his left side
were lacerated, and he spat blood for several days after;
he was confined to bed for many days ; he had also a
Pack eye, occasioned by some very violent blow ; he was
not recovered yet.
Mr. Platt having . replied, Mr. Justice Williams
summed up, and the jury returned a verdict for Mr.
Green—Damages, 20L

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 11.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL.)
ELIOT V. ELLIS AND HICKS.
This case was resumed this morning, when a few witnesses,
in aris:lition to those who gave evidence yesterday, were called
for the plaintiff. After the plaintiff's case had been closed,
Mr. Sergeant SIIEE addressed the jury for the defence. He
tidied upon the jury to defend the parish officers in this
case, who had done no more than their duty, and what they
were bound to do, in protecting society from a person
in the state of mind to which the plaintiff was reduced. He
would be able to prove to them that the plaintiff was not in
a sane state of mild—that he lived in the most extraordi-
miry manner, and wag in the habit of acting in such a man-
ner as no person of soul:4 mind would act. He would show
that when he was broaght into the workhouse, he
attacked one of the inmates named Harris, most vio-
lently, and that when he was dismissed by the
Wagistrate he was found near the canal by two
policemen, under such circumstances as led them to be-
lieve that he intended to commit suicide. He denied that
,the plaintiff had suffered any pecuniary loss. He would
prove that he had not a sixpence in the world, and that he
even owed money ; that he was living in a most wretched
manner, and in fact, that it was an advantage to him to be
taken to the workhouse. The plaintiff was as mad as 111‘Naugh-
ten, or any other madman, who committed acts of violence
on society, and the parish officers would not do their duty
towards society and towards the prisoner himself, if they did
:not take the steps they had taken.
The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to call witnesses
tom'ablish those facts, the examination of whom occupied
the Co'ot until it rose. There were between twenty and thirty
AVitylpqqpN in attendance on the part of the defence.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 11.
(Nisi Prius 6ittings, before Baron GURNEY and Special
Juries.)
EXCISE CASES. ,—. 711 E ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. BATES
AND OTHERS.
This was an information filed by the Attorney-Gene-
ral to convict the defendants in penalties for having un-
lawfully shipped, without a permit, goods on which the
duty had not been paid, and also for introducing into the
'country goods actually prohibited.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Wilde appeared in support of the
iisformation, and Mr. Wordsworth for the defence.
ft appeared that on the 19th of May, 1842, an excise
vei,ser, named Evans, seized at the Great Western Rail-
way :station at Paddington, 102 bales of tobacco stalks
(weigh,! 13,347 lbs.), a cask of manufactured tobacco
(weight :,691b5.), and a trunk of, manufactured tobacco
(weight 103 lbs.). The defendant Gates was a master
mariner residing at Southsea, but at present in Win-
chester gaol for the offence that formed the subject of
the present information. The other defendants were
John Attwood, a farmer residing near Gosport, and
Archibald Rutledge, the owner of a carrier's warehouse
in Portsea. In 1842, Gates, who was the master of a
smack called the George the Fourth, at the instance of
the other defendants, was prevailed upon to take in a
cargo of tobacco at Jersey. On the 22d of February
in that year, he sailed in ballast for Cardiff from Ports-
mouth, and arrived at the former place on the 4th of
. arch. when he took in a cargo of eighty tons of coals,
ana cleared out for Portsmouth; but, instead of making
for thatport, he proceeded to Bouley Bay, in Jersey,
where cr cargo of tobacco was to have been ready,
for him immediately on his arrival in port. However
the person having charge of the tobacco would not allow
it'to be shipped, in consequence of the smack having
received some damage at sea. Gates therefore
oroceeded to Gove, in the same island, where
It: disposed of a portion of the coals, and
returned to Portsmouth and disposed of
then
the I.,.,mainder of his cargo. Subsequently, he
shipped ,at Liverpool a cargo of pipe clay, taking
care, hove tier, to leave a considerable space unoccupied
pay!: of the vessel, and cleared out for
se the the fore
sea, but instead of proceeding there, he went to Bouley
the_ tobacco. in question, with
Bay, and shippod
the assistance a the
,lefendant, who immediately re-
the
to England by ,steanier, and the George the
"‘rii, and having arrived at
Fourth proceeded to the Sev.
h GI
Sharpness Point, near the moat:". of
le canal t e oucestther 16th
e an
Berkeley canal, passed the lock of aon
of May, 1842. There the defendant joined the ship, and
having hauled her to a lay-by the tobacco was unshipped
and forwarded by the Great Western Railway to Lon-
don, where the seizure was made.
Evidence in support of this statement of facts was
dduced, and
.The Learned JUDGE having summed up,
ori:,e jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
magoi
.2,2501.
•_ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. COLE.
The fOt,:,rmation was filed by the Attorney-General
against the a:9fendant, Joseph Cole, for having in his
possession max- coombings roasted and coloured, so as to
,imitate tobacco, nd for selling the same for the purpose
of being used in tt,:e adulteration of tobacco, whereby
the revenue was defr.iuded.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Wilde conducted the case for the
Crown, and the defendant appeared in person to defend.
Mr. JERVIS, in stating ti,;_s case, said that the present
case was one which had rarely, at all events for a very
long time, come before the Couirt. The defendant was
charged, upon the information, with having in his pos-
t, ession and selling malt coombings, which he had pre-
j usly roasted and coloured so as to imitate tobacco, an
rendered himself
act which was in violation of the Act of Parliament,
(as was under-
stood' which he bad, consequently,
was a shop-
liab:le to certain penalties, amounting
in Court
to 9001. The
.defendant, it appeared,
stoody
keeper at Bradford, in Yorkshire, and was
defend If was the in-
,defend in person. He, understood. it .to
the defendant to submit an objection to the
Tention oi?
on the ground that the article seized did
informatioiff
not fall within the denomination of articles pointed out
by the statute? but he apprehended that, when the ob-
edit forward, the Learned
jection should have been broil),
Baron on the Beirch would have no difficulty in at once
intimating to the deisendant that. his offence came clearly
within the meaning a.nd intention of the Act of Par-
t 'ament. Some years since the laws affecting tobacco
re extremely stringent, but it having been thought
advisable to relax in resp;ct to those laws, an alteration
Nyasa made whereby the duty was made payable on the
manufactured ,article. Under the 3d and 4th Victoria,
c. 16, the amendment in the law had been effected, but
it wes,deemed necessary, inasmuch ag the price of tobacco
was oaly about- one penny, whilst the duty was 3s. per
pound, to take care that there should be no imitation of
the article itself, and, therefore, by the 11th section, a
penalty of 1001. was leviable upon all persons who should
roast, colour, or stain anyleaves of trees, any leaves of
herbs, or any plants whatever, so as to imitate tobacco.
t would thus be seen that it was unlawful to use
the lealtest of any herb or plant for the purpose of
.
v Xing with tobacco, The sole question in the present
c 9 s 4 was, whether malt coombings were or were not a
'b °r hey
plant. He should contend with much con-
fidei arae that they were a plant, and that having been
cleari
'y ogoblished to the satisfaction of the jury, he ap-

prehended they would have no difficulty in finding a
verdict for the Crown.
Evidence was then called which went to prove that
three seizures had been made of this compound, one at
Bradford, one at Wakefield, and one at Irongate Wharf,
Paddington, It was also stated by the first witness, the
Excise officer, that malt coombings are the little shoots
which spring out from the barley during the early pro-
cess of malting, and grows before the further vegetation
is stopped, to the length of from a quarter to half an
inch. The root or shoot is then taken from the barley
and put into a cylinder like a coffee roaster, and roasted
or dried over the fire, by which means, as in the case of
coffee, a darkened colour, is imparted, so dark as very
closely to resemble tobacco. [A quantity in a raw and
roasted state was produced.] Prior to this proceeding
the grain was steeped in warm water for fifty or sixty
hours, the effect of which was, that in about thirty hours
hours afterwards the shoots would make their appear-
ance. The defendant, continued this witness, called upon
him after the seizure and said that the officers had used
him very ill by taking his property. The defendant in
their conversation had not denied that the article be-
longed to him, but admitted that it was made and used
to " reduce" tobacco.
After other officers had been examined, a witness of
the name of Lee stated that he had acted as agent to
the defendant in the sale of this article to tobacconists.
It was sold at is. per pound, and probably might cost
2d. or 2id., inclusive of labour. He had sold a consider-
able quantity of it.
The defendant, when the me for the Crown had
closed, submitted that there was no case to go the jury,
inasmuch as the article which had been seized was not a
plant, and was not contemplated by the Act of Parlia-
ment. The information also charged him with having
barley in his possession ; but there had not been any
evidence to prove that such had been the fact. The truth
was, that he had not had any barley.
Mr. Baron GURNEY said he had no hesitation in giv-
ing it as his epinion that a malt coombing was a plant.
He had no doubt upon the point. It was a plant, and,
therefore, came within the operation of the Act of Par-
liament.
The defendant then -addressed the jury, and, after
stating that his attention had been originally called to
the article by a quantity having been offered to him for
sale, proceeded to say that having obtained high opi-
nions upon the question, to the effect that malt coomb-
ings were not contemplated by the statute, he had be-
come manufacturer of the article. He still contended
that the 11th section of the Act did not in any way ap-
ply to his case. He complained that the Excise had
offered to compromise the matter for 201., and now, after
the seizure had been made for three years, he was pur-
sued for penalties amounting to 9001.
Mr. JERVIS, in his reply, said this was the first time
he had heard of a proffered act of leniency on the part
of the Crown being attempted to be turned against it.
The offer of compromise had been made because the
Excise had supposed that the defendant might, in con-
sequence of an ambiguity (which had since been cor-
rected) in the section of the Act of Parliament, have
been misled. That offer, however, had been rejected,
and the Crown, therefore, had been compelled to go for
the penalties.
Mr. Baron GURNEY summed up, and observed that
there could be no doubt of a malt coombing being .a plant.
Mr. JERVIS here said that the Crown in this instance
only went for two penalties of 100/. each.
The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a
verdict for the Crown, with penalties for 2001.

_ .
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. COX.
This was an information filed by the Attorney-Gene-
ral for the recovery of penalties for an infringement of
the statute regulating the manufacture and sale of paper.
It was proved that the defendant, who is a paper-
maker at Boulden, near Hungerford, had sold paper
which had not been charged to the duty, that he had al-
tered the weight of the parcel as originally marked on
the stamped wrapper, and that he had sent out and sold
paper in considerable quantities without any wrapper
having been placed round the package, all these acts
being violations of the Act of Parliament.
'rhe case wad undefended, and
The jury, therefore, after the case had been proved by
evidence, returned a verdict for the Crown for penalties
amounting to 5601.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT. ... .

- -
Mary Ann Brown, a rather interesting looking female,
about 26 years of age, and John Francis Skinner, a fashion-
ably dressed young man, wearing meustachios, were indicted
for furging a cheque for 1901., with intent to defraud Messrs.
Smith, Payne, and Smith the bankers, on the 9th of January
last. The name forged was, as ma be remembered from our
recent police reports, that of Lady Margaret Nettlethorpe.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Doane conducted the prosecution,
while Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner Brown, and Mr. M.
Chambers appeared for Skinner.
Mr. BODKIN having stated the particulars of the case to
the jury,
Mr. Evyson, clerk to Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Smith,
deposed to the fact of a cheque having been cashed on the
day named in the indictment, alleged to be drawn by Lady
Nettlethorpe.
Lady Margaret Nettlethorpe stated that she was the
widow of Sir Henry Nettlethorpe, and resided at River Hill,
in Kent. She met the prisoner Brown in London, who made
application to her for an engagement as a companion, but
this was only accepted for a short time, during which Miss
Brown had had frequent opportunities of seeing her (Lady
Nettlethorpe) write. Witness never gave her authority to
sign any cheque in her name. Was aware that Miss Brown
belonged to a most respectable family, but had latterly been
in rather distressed circumstances, when she lent her some
money.
Cross-examined—The opportunities which the prisoner
Brown had of seeing her write, was when she was writing
letters. Used printed cheques, and seldom wrote more than
two or three during the year. Miss Brown was aware that
she banked with Smith, Payne, and Smith.
The next witness was Mrs. Mason, who deposed that the
prisoner resided some time at her house at Kingston, and in
payment of her rent, &c.. gave her a 5/. note.
The note was identified as one of those which had been
paid away upon Lady Nettlethorpe's cheque.
Several other witnesses having been examined, who gave
collateral evidence, all of which has been already published
in our police report,
Inspector Pearce, of the Detective Force, deposed to taking
the prisoners into custody at Kingston, when they
both declared their innocence of the offence of
forgery. The two prisoners were living together as
man and wife, and when the witness went to their
lodging, Skinner acknowledged that the female was not his
wife, but begged of him not to let the people of the house
know anything about the transaction, as they had lived there
most respectably, and without the slightest imputation or
suspicion.
Mr. Witacras addressed the jury on behalf of his client in
an able and lengthened speech, and in illustration of the diffi-
culty with which the identity of a signature was beset, men-
tioned the case of a Learned Judge in that Court (Mr. Justice
Mattison) who mistook his own handwriting.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS addressed the jury on behalf of the
prisoner Skinner, and commented strongly upon the impro-
bability of a person who bore her Majesty's commission and
held the high station in society which he did, being guilty
of the crime with which he was charged. The Learned
Counsel also commented upon the honourable feeling which
lie exhibited in not availing himself of the offer of Mr. Bush
to become a witness against the female prisoner.
Several witnesses, most of them officers of the army and
navy, were called, who gave the prisoner Skinner the highest
character for honour and respectability.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON having summed up,
The jury, after a short consultation in the box, stated to
the judge that they would not be likely to agree for some time,
after which they retired in custody of one of the officers of
the Court to the jury-room to consider their verdict.
The jury, after about an hour's deliberation, returned into
Court with a verdict of Guilty against Mary Ann Brown,
and of Acquittal in favour of Skinner.
The- female prisoner, who wept bitterly upon hearing the
verdict, was removed from the dock for a few moments, but
was again brought up for judgment.
Mr. Baron ..DERSON said, it was with much pain he was
compelled to inflict the very severe sentence he was about to
do, but he felt that he would not be otherwise discharging
his duty. The sentence of the Court was, that she be trans-
ported beyond the seas for fifteen years.
The unfortunate young woman, upon hearing the judg-
ment, nearly went into hysterics, and loudly implored mercy.
When being led below to the cells she encountered Skinner,
who was standing at the back of the dock, waiting to be
discharged, when she threw her arms round his neck, and
passionately embraced and kissed him, saying, " Good bye,
dear John, for ever." Skinner seemed to repel her as much
as possible, and walked coolly oat of the dock.

NEW COURT.
ARSON.—Mary Ann Joblyns, aged 35, and Mary Pet-
tigrew, aged 81, were indicted for feloniously and mali-
ciously setting fire to a dwelling-house. The witnesses
proved the facts, which have already been before the
public. A distress had been put into the house rented
by the elder prisoner for 421., due for rent to the trustees
of the property. The two prisoners slept in the house
while the officer was in possession on the 16th of April.
Both prisoners went out, as they said to tea ; the elder
prisoner returned and went up stairs, where she re-
mained about an hour ; the younger prisoner afterwards
returned and went up stairs also with a candle, and
stayed there about fifteen,minutes, after which she left
the house. The officer in possession after this found a
strong suffocating smell in the house, and searched it ;
he then called in some neighbours, and on examination
it was found that tho room on the first-floor was on fire.
It was not extensive, and was soon extinguished. Seve-
ral holes were found in the flooring boards, in which
were placed a quantity of matches.
The COMMON SERGEANT said, there was no proof
against Pettigrew, and the jury therefore acquitted her ;
but the prisoner Joblyns was found guilty, and sen-
tenced to be transported for fifteen years. The prisoner,
who is a most respectable-looking woman, was taken
from the dock screaming most piteously to be allowed
to go home to her children.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.
A person named Elizabeth Williams, a Welsh woman,
was brought up, charged with the ofence of inducing
David Morgan, a countryman of her own, to give her
food and lodgings under false pretences.
The complainant said the prisoner, of whom he had
no knowledge, called at his house one day, and asked
him whether his name was David Morgan' and whether
he had not received two letters from Wales within the
last day or two. He replied that the prisoner was
right as to his mime, but mistaken as to the letters.
~ Oh ! (said she) you have an uncle who has been 77
years in India, and has just died at the age of 101,
a great
leav-
mully thousands behind him, and you will
come in for your share
ing as a near relative."
MAYOR—And you took her to diet and
representation ?
The LORD
Com-
plainant—She told me A
The LORD MAYOR—
lodge with you upon
itsuwc
ha d an aged uncle iu India ?
lieve her ? Have youahs aall
MAYOR--And had you any reason to be-
Com 1 hearoi that I had not.—
that Ilhad, but then I never
brought down the brandy
Complainant—Not to my knowledge. I never hand
(Laughter.) Well, my wifebottle, and then she had a drop ; and after a good deal
of talk about the old gentleman, she tools a fanny to the

situation, and said she should like to live with us en-

tirely.—(Laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR—And so you took her upon the
strength of the story about the old gentleman ? Com-
plainant—Yes, we took her, and she lived as we did ;
but, as she did not seem inclined to pay, my wife began
to make some inquiry or investigation like, and she found
that she had been round to several other David Mor-

gans, telling some of them that they had uncles and
others that they had aunts in India, and that there was
no end to the money that was coming over.—(Laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR—Did she induce you by any re-
presentation of the kind to give her money? Com-
plainant—No.
The LORD MAYOR—WeII, I am of opinion that you
have not an old uncle in the circumstances she has re-
presented, and that she has told the falsehood for what
she has succeeded in obtaining, a comfortable living,
until she was detected. But I cannot punish her. You
ought not to have been so credulous as to believe a
stranger in a matter so full of improbabilities.—Dis-
charged.