The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-20 00:00:00

40,7 n te
° of Chesnut is larger than has ever been
to., h in
onsumpt
low pricoe, compared to other nuts, ueing
Ur of cin.

(stilL tJEEN'S BENCII.—(THIS DAY.)
ngs at Niz-i Prins, he ore Lord CAMPBELL and a
Special Jury.)
DANIEL V. CHALLIS AND ANOTHER.
this was an action to recover compensation for an al-
" illeal Ot- •
stress.
thezielicitor-General, Mr. Coaling, and Mr. Se:sll,
's\a,•`-'ansel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant ,lee,
for' 'I. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Bramwell, appeared
r the
aide defendants.. .
het Daniel, the plaintiff, is a solicitor, residing at
the ''Stn, Wiltshire; and, in this action, represented
ktd•st_ssignees of Mr. James Bohn, bookseller and
rlik„isacr, and now a bankrupt, and the defen-
ol,‘t"t' Were the Sheriffs of London at the time the
Li ;";!1 in action arose. In 1845 Mr. Bohn instructed
thlt.°lleitur, Mr. Heare, to raise money for him, and
thogentlean, having communicated with the plaintiff,.
th was then the attorney of a Captain Long, residing
ttad e,vicinity of Bath, who had money to lend, on the
di of January, 1846, a deed was executed between Mr.
h!tic,s Bohn, of the first part, Mr. John Bohn, his
8O0i;er and aysi;tant, of the second part, Mr.
Van% of the third part, and Mr. Daniel, the
kloh:,1", of the fourth part, assigning all Mr. James
stock in :trade to secure 3,0001, advanced
aopt,tain Lew; to Mr. James Bohn. The deed also
trust with respect to moneys due from Mr.
of C Bohn to Mr. Hoare. It also reAted an indenture
Lalst of October, 1845, between Mr. John Bohn
hsr. Hoare. whereby the former assigned to Hoare
interevt in the estate of his late father in con-
k?, stion of 501. The deed Ws,. rt cited another ind..ll-
8,3 h of the Ist of Novrmber, 1845, between James
ra:h37' andthen Hoare,
or due by w
to hichbecome due to secure the payare, mentJames
of all
110
tt assigned to, Hoare all the proVrty not previously
lino"(" to the Bishop of Llandaff, Mr. Scares-
of k' and Mr. Ansel', by a deed of the 24th
tk5Y, 1844. Shortly after the execution of the deed
t4l" 23d Jauary, 1846, Mr. Bohn removed his busi-
krt„froro King William-street, Strand, to St. James's-
tvis-' where Hoare occupied a first floor. The husi-
o, W,as theta carried on in the names of Daniel and
tp4 lhere was another deed executed in 1846, bt-
tht-4Q,P,Jarnes Bohn, John Bohn, Mr. Hoare, and Mr.
Yea,', similar to the previous one of January is that
tlt appeared that on the 20th February, 1846,
t4e are issued a writ of ti. fa. on a judgment re-
tict47d against Mr. James Bohn, at the suit of Cap-
%al Long, a few days previously. An execution was
geript into Mr. Bobn's premises by Sloman, the
ttlivp As Officer, at the instance of Hoare, who, it was
tiAs'", had taken this step at a time when Mr. Bohn
tiin IP the country, and without the sanction of Cap-
tild,,'",;'• 'rho result was, that Mr. Bohn's stock-in-
was sold by the sheriff at a serious loss. Under
ar,tisoe circumstances the plaintiff brought the present
6tist 1.1 to recover compensation for the loss he bad
sinea
Th„ •-•
loft, ease, which was proceeding when our report
.;vas likely to last the whole of the day.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(THIS DAY.)
(Bqol. CRIMINAL APPEALS.
.1,.- Jethe LORD CHIEF BARON. Mr. Justice MAME,
k • Ustice CRESSWELL, Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, and
r• Justice TALFoURD.

1'l) QUEEN v BIRD AND WIFE.
It the Prisoners were tried before Mr. Justice Talfourd
841. Exeter Assizes, for the murder of an apprentice
tot ft" acquitted. They were subsequently indicted
sgai" assault, and convicted. An appeal was made
*eita,t the conviction on the ground that the assault as
as the murder was con'ained in the first indictment.
liffq Ire LORD CHIEF BARON now stated that there was a
Irkth,tlee of opinion among the Learned Judges when the
rig-lats were beard, and their Lordships thought it
of that the case should stand over for the consideration
ket,tergar number of the members of the Court.—Judg
Postp.ned accordingly.
TIIE QUEEN v. JOSEPH BARNES.—JUDGMENT.
Was tLORD CHIEF BARON said the prisoner in this ease
Bail d before the Recorder of Canterbury. and found
fwlony. The Court was of opinion that, though
st`il W." was clearly guilty of obtaining money under
%1044vt'reterces he was not liable to be indicted for
IttiaQii and therefore the prosecution could not be sus-
i.ti"--Conviction quashed.
1, QUEEN V. ARTHUR FERRALL.—JUD93IENT.
ttgki"t
je LORD CHIEF BARON said this was an indictment
tiN4rs.ta soldier for disobeying the order of two justices
child ng him to be the putative father of an illegitimate
tasitl; 'lnd directing him to pay a sum of money for its
ktitl,iellace. Upon this indictment the prisoner was
`ltlivillittl'• Now, the Court was of opinion that the
sood-" of the defendant for such disobedience was a
lima iclovietion, and must therefore stand. At the same
k'tkt there
e could not refrain expressing his individual dis
er°lll the doctrine that there was nothing to prevent
tech tic,4l" of Sessions, on a party being convicted for
n'Or f,—,,ll.PaYment of money, ordering him imprisonment,
'six, or eight months, or even a larger term o•
that 'lei:neat, when it was expressly decided b) the statute
e it,he term of punishment tor such disobedience
se tifi b" three months. The conviction must, however,
moo, Ceded, and an order be expressly made for three.
tti to S' imprisonment. With regard to the other point,
till 1,1.4 soldier being exempt from imprisonment, except
lqeri'iultaal charges, the Court was of opinion that the
thi:l:ant was not entitled to such exemption, a case of
41(1 being expressly set out in the statute.
e4te' conviction was accordingly' affirmed, and a certi-
latt„ granted for the imprisonment of the defendant fur
months.
St

CONDARIES!—ITHIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. St condary POTTER.)
NICHOLLS V. SHILTON.
reTdis an inquiry to assess damages on an issue di-
of the High Court of ChancerY, to try the validity
ktti4-"t1 of covenant. It appeared defendant had been
d
kti eel to the late W.lNicholl, a solicitor, and cove,,r)adnfor
ci.irrterfere with, or be professionally
ter Oaf
eh
clients penalty of of his master, under a
titl--,ee breach, and the like amount for each
.days con-
Way :,ce• Five breaches were alleged, and an injunctdio
teost.7,teined, and this issue directed. Defendant es.
but the demurrer was overruled, hence the pre
ThProceedines.
teen! l'l4iotiff's solicitor said they did not seek for.
dttts4ehsttu 1001, on each breach, as and for liquidated
verdict for 5001. was then taken.
CRIMINAL COURT-(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
elta THE STRAND ROBBERY.
11, b ries Clinton, aged 17, a porter; Daniel John Shaw,
Ptelaker; James Badcock, 19, shoemaker; John
44:clitier, 25, a hawker; Mary Ann tCheruneau,. George
kifkli", and Mary Ann Buncher, were indicted. for
ng divers watches, diamond rings, and other articles.
ill. ,5001 the property of Thomas Clapham and
ttl)i -rtfl Williams, in their dwelling-house in the Strand,
Were "terwards breaking out of the same house. There
I)l,,aeveral other counts in the indictment, varying the
ess,,',lol the charge, and imputing to some of the priso-
Dest;e minor offence of receiving portions of the pro-
? knowing it to have been stolen.
for ~st Bodkin, with whom was Mr. Clarkson, appeared
ke.-ipc' Prosecution. Mr, Ballantine for the Bunchers,
,eh acre for Shaw and Badcock, Mr. Parnell for
4leetCs'inceell,
,Mr. Huddlestone for Gardner, while Mr.
of t-" Was in attendance to watch the case on behalf
34. °Y Clinton.
esia• CLARKSON stated the ease to the jury, which he
for tii:ea one of considerable importance to the public,
ves,, e robbery charged upon the prisoners was of a
RN' Ktraordinary character; and, if he was rightly in-
by it would turn out to have been perpetrated
‘tiA:(l,lne of the prisoners at the bar. Some of the
teretli Property had been recovered, and whateverd
tytil the jury might arrive at, they could not avoid
y ilethising with the unfortunate prosecutors, whose
had been very considerable indeed. They were ex-
tp Jewellers and silversmiths, carrying on business
the e Strand, and the robbery was committed there
in
4Prk'ar'Y part of October, as it would seem, by previous
reise-getoeut with some one or other engaged on the pr--
S• Indeed, one of the prisoners, namely, the boy elm-
h4d Who wastaken into custody the day after the robbery,
Zorded guilty, and made a confession which would
tioialated to the jury, and which, if true, se-
IteoclY implicated the other parties who
°t4 Charged ef the robbery. Other circum•
disciof an equally conclusive character would be
hist.sed in the sourse of the evidence, such as state-
ef Made by the prisoners themselves, and the finding
to c:tneY and papers on their persons which_worod instance,seem
e some connexion with the robbery. F
tt Ock was heard on a particular occasion to talk about
th;Teerted plan of robbery, which " Charley," meaning.h
* 2°Y Clinton, had undertaken to engage in, while
when
e
(,()1.`"„ ChEruneau, who cohabited with Gardner,
‘k..ateering a statement, was suddenly stopped by
th:dner. The officer, however, finding ho could not get
statement, asked her if she had anything about
ostt ,Person. She replied iu the negative, but
Sost,„"tog searched at the station, a large
th rlt of money was found upon her, and she was,
te:ictere, charged with having received some of the pro-
, Bof the robbery. On the second woman was
w°od a list of valuable jewellery, and this fact, coupled
other circumstances of a suspicious character, led
0 ~ser arrest and that of her husband. It was not ne-
-11:, ,:try filr him to go over all the evidence in detail, and
Pro-001d, therefore, not trouble the jury further, but
erkreeed at once to call the evidence upon which they
of uel to decide, whether the prisoners at the bar, or any
ern, bad been concerned in this very serious robbery.
Al All the prisoners pleaded not guilty but Clinton, who
;:tdcd guilty.
th_lr• Thomas Clapham, one of the prosecutors, was
t„' Rrst witness called. He deposed as follows—l am
j"wPartnership with a gentleman named Williams, vs a
Str .Ikr and silversmith, and we carry on business in the
fltl. We have two shops that communicate with
keietf other; a porter named Kelly, resides on the pre-
le,t;•, in one of these shops we have an iron safe let
tue wall. We have an assistant of the name of
tscard, and it was his duty at night to lock up a large
r(:ttion a the valuable property in the safe, and take the
With him. On Monday ev, ning, the 21st of October,
ti elt the shop shortly after eight o'clock, end at the
e I left, Clinton was putting the shutters up. I lett
tscard there with Kelly, the porter. A little before
it o'clock on the 641,etwing morning I returned to the
):P end fouid that sthc.viren safe had been opened
,
false het., that JvasAtill„,qinaiiiing in the lock.
\sateh'''ed ~from that,, safe_ et,, number of rings,
ist•tittt: ood, other. fertreles, ~fsimirun ing in value to
ig4tillf-46°91-1r•I a6l N, missedTproperty of the same de,
.pc,r--Na from a glaesseaseforming one of the windows,
Q' slue of•betweem.sgtOls, Knd XOOl., making about

now