The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-11 00:00:00

The were subsequently brought in and read a
first time.
Adjourned at One o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Maylo.
Sittings after Term at Nisi Prins, 'before Lord Chief

Justice WILDE and a Common Jury.)
The case of Wright v. Wilcox was the only case
brought before the Court this morning. The proceed-
ings were of great length, and were not of sufficient in-
terest to merit a report.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, May 10.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF ROBERT POTTER.

The bankrupt, described as of 9, Lansdowne Villas,
Bromptom, and of 50, Haymarket, tavern-keeper, who
owned the well-known house called the Waterford
Arms, came up on the question of passing his last
examination. The balance-sheet, prepared by Mr.
Glover, has the following items :—Creditors, 1,5481.;
ditto, holding security, 2701.; profits, 1,4001.; losses
1,562/. ; trade charges, 1,045/4 peisonal and domestic
ditto, 8401.; property taken by assignees, 1271.;
horses, 1251.; good and doubtful debts, 136/.
Mr. LAWRA.INCE supported. The bankrupt passed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, May 10.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Lem.)
IN RE WILLIAM CORBETT.
Mrs. Cobbett applied this morning on behalf of
her husband, who, sbe said, had been in prison for ten
y ears, that the vesting order made upon a creditor's
petition might be annulled, upon the ground of in-
formality. Mr. Cobbett had been taken upon an at-
tachment for costs, upon which the vesting order had
been issued as a matter of course, but Mrs. Cobbett
contended that her husband never having been
" committed," a vesting order could not be made.
Mr. Commissioner Lew said he did not think a
vesting order should issue of course. It was not the
function of this Court to keep people in prison, and it
was not the cause of Mr. Cobbett's long detention.
Mrs. Cobbett replied that this Court had inflicted
a grievous punishment upon her husband by re-
moving him to a part of the prison allotted to fraudu-
lent persons.
Mr. Commissioner LAW said that was the doing of
the Secretary of State. This Court did not approve
of such things.
The matter was then ordered to stand over, that it
might be subsequently brought in a more regular
manner before the Court.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
TRIAL OF WALTER WATTS FOR DEFRAUDING THE

GLOBE INSURANCE OFFICE.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Cross-examined--The prisoner had been in the office
since 1832, and was a servant of the company, who paid
him his salary. The papers he wanted sealed up were
not all the office contained, but those in his own and the
secretary's offices. The prisoner held two shares in the
crmpany, and no doubt had received dividends. There
was a treasury committee, without whose authority no
cheques could be drawn. The cheques are signed by
three of the directors, and countersigned by the treasurer
or secretary. The cheque is then handed to a clerk in
the cashier's office, and before it is handed to the party
in whose favour it is drawn it is copied into a transcript
book. The prisoner surrendered to the police.
Re-examined—The cheque-book produced is the one
that was in use in February. The prisoner had no ac-
cess to it. It was kept in the inner department of the
cashier's office, and never was brought higher than the
board-room. It was the duty of the prisoner further to
take care of the cheque when it was ready for delivery,
and to countersign it. There appear to have been
several leaves torn out of this cheque-book. I never saw
the prisoner in the lower office, where this book is kept,
but it was his duty to go in on his arrival in the morn-
ing and enter his name in the time-book. The pass-book
was entrusted to the prisoner's custody.
Cross-examined--The prisoner could not get to this
cheque-book in the lower office, when he signed his
name in the time-book. It was the duty of the prisoner's
father to keep the duplicate cheque-book.
Mr. George W. Ellis, a clerk in the office of Messrs.
Freshfield, the solicitors for the prosecution, stated that
he served the prisoner and his solicitor with notice to pro-
duce the missing cheques and his pass-book with the
London and Westminster Bank.

Mr. James Ashton, the ledger clerk of the London and
Westminster Bank, produced the ledger in which the ac-
count of the prisoner for the present year was kept. On
the 26th of Feb. the prisoner appeared to be credited 1,4001.
as cash. In January and February the prisoner paid in
various sums, and the balance now remaining in his
favour was 201. 7s. 4d.

This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. COCKBURN then took the objection that the in-
dictment could not be sustained, inasmuch as the pri-
soner was a partner in the Globe Insurance Company,
who, in fact, were the prosecutors in this case, though
the Act to which the Learned Attorney-General had
already referred, provided that the 'company should sue
or be sued, prosecute or be prosecuted in the name of
its treasurer, and gave no power whatever to sue or pro-
secute each other, except in so far as to recover the calls
on money to be raised under the general provisions of
the Act. In common law, therefore, the com-
pany could sustain no prosecution against the
prisoner, and there were ample authorities
in the books to support this objection. The Learned
Gentleman cited the cases of "The King and Ranley"
in Russell and Ryan, page 478; " The King and
Willis," Moody's Crown cases, page 110; and " The
Queen and White," Cox's criminal law cases, page 245.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL—IS it the dictum you rely
upon, a man can't steal his own property?
Mr. COCKBURN—Certainly, my Lord.
Mr. Justice CaEsswELL—Well, then, the charge is
not for stealing from the company, but from individuals.
Mr. COCKBURN—No, my Lord, he is charged with
stealing the property of the treasurer, as the represen-
tative of the company.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL—I am not speaking of the
cheque for 1,4001.
Mr. CCCKBURN—Your Lordship then is speaking of
stealing the piece of paper. In the case of the " King
and Willis," it was held, my Lord, that a wife could not
be found guilty of staling the property of a society and
company in which her husband was a partner, and I
submit, upon principle, that this indictment cannot be
sustained. A man can't steal his own property.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL—In some cases he can; for
instance, there is a note to a case in Saunders, where a
master robbed his servant under these circumstances.
He gave him some money to go and pay a bill, and
while the servant was on the road he waylaid him and
took the money from him. Now, do you mean to say
that a man in such a case could not be prosecuted for
stealing his own money?
Mr. COCKBURN—Yes, my Lord, he can, if he commits
the robbery with a felonious intent, but here the piece of
paper was as much the property of the prisoner as any
of the directors.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—The rule of law as laid down
by Lord Hale is this,—a joint tenant having possession
of a thing cannot be indicted for stealing it from his
partner, and that was the rule the Court relied on in de-
ciding the case of the wife already referred to. There
the husband was the joint tenant in possession.
Mr. CoctsunN—Well, my Lord, I apprehend the
prisoner was the tenant in possession, but the principle
laid down by Lord Hale was broader than that main-
tained by the Court. Lord Hale distinctly states that a.
man entitled even to possession cannot be prosecuted.
Mr. Justice CBESSWELL—But here it is shown that
he was not entitled to possession.
Mr. COCKBURN—Nor was it shown to be in the pos-
session of the directors, wbo are the prosecutors; and I
submit the piece of paper was as much the prisoner's
property and in his possession as the directors. This
was evidently a case of joint partnership, where some of
the parties were managing a business for the others, and
no indictment for felony could be sustained against them.
Mr. BODKIN was heard on the same side.
Mr. Justice CRESBWELL said there was no doubt as
to the rule of law upon this subject, but here there was
a special property, and the indictment could be sustained.
Mr. BODKIN took exception to this. No special pro-
perty had been shown whatever; the directors were paid
for their services and so were the clerks, while there
was no evidence whatever to show that the directors
were specially responsible to the other partners or share-
holders for the security of the property then in their pos-
session.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL overruled the objection, on
the ground that there was special possession and special
property in the directors.
Mr. Baron ALDER3ON concurred in this ruling.
Mr. COCKBURN applied to the Court to reserve the
point.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL—I have said nothing about
that yet.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—That is matter for after con-
sideration.
Mr. COCKBURN addressed the jury for the prisoner
at great length.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL then summed up the evidence.
The jury after an hour's absence returned into court
with a verdict of Guilty of stealing a piece of paper.
Mr. COCKBURN moved an arrest of judgment until
the point raised in the course of the trial relative to the
prisoner being a partner in the company could be de-
cided by the Exchequer Chamber.
The CounT granted the application.
The ATTORNEY•GENTrRLL said there were several
other indictments against the prisoner, but he should not
take any further steps regarding them until the present
indictment was finally disposed of by the decision of the
judges upon the point of law.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,
BOW-STREET.

Sidney Robert Sparks was placed at the bar before
Mr. Jardine, charged with being concerned in a series
of frauds effected by newspaper advertisements.
The prisoner had summoned a Mr. Parrott, of
whom he had rented an office in Great Queen-street,
to explain why he refused to deliver up certain papers
and account books, of which he had taken forcible
possession. At the time fixed for the hearing of the
summons Mr. Parrott was present, but the complain-
ant (the prisoner) had not arrived. The papers were
handed up for the inspection of the Court, and they
proved to be the form of advertisements, agreements,
letters, and other machinery, by which the swindling
operations of a rather numerous gang in the metro-
polis are successfully carried on. The magistrate
consequently directed an officer to retain the docu-
ments, and dismissed the summons. At a latter
period of the afternoon the prisoner arrived at the
court, attributed his
,previous absence to an