The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-15 00:00:00

CERTIFICATES G RANTED.

M. L. Pritchard, Livt-rpool, stockbroker, certificate c f
the third class—J. E. Clarke, Burj St. Edmund's clothier
—J.Stolle and W. Hodgson, Chri:tian- street, St. George-
in-the-East, vinegar-makers, certificates of the second
class—J. Wenham, Beckley, Sussex, tailor and draper—
J. Goddard, Outwell, Norfolk, carpenter—C. Veals, Uff-
culme, Devonshire, baker, certificate of the first class—
B. S. Saunders, Stawell, Somersetshire, quarryman, cer-
tificate of the first class—lL Paris, Liverpool, grocer,
certificate of the second class, after 21 days:from July 9.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

T. R. Cobb and E. Cobb, Banbury, Oxfordshire,
bankers—T. Harding ani J. Harding, Baker's-row,
Walworth-road, oil and colourmen—H. Martyr and W.
H. Bather, Laurence Pountney-lane, City, tea dealers—
J. Arthur and Margaret Arthur, Sidney-place, Commer-
cial- road East, cheesemongers—J. Mannering and W.
Mannering, Dover and River, Kent, millers—J. B. Ron-
deau and J. Wild, Thornton, Yorkshire, drapers—W.
Philpot, jun., and C. Philpot, Maidstone, professors of
dancing—T. Griffiths and C. H. May, Edgware-real,
general fancy dealers—A. Murray and S. Hodgkinson,
Ilreadnielle-street, City—J. Moore and J. Grainger,
Liverpool and Quebec—W. Warren and IL Warren,
Northampton, drapers—J. Woods and C. Sloman, Great
Yarmouth, auctioneers—W. Harding and E. Harding,
Crickhowell, Breconshire, linen and woollendrapers—
T. Ailbut, E. Allbut, and R. Hobson, Hanley,
Staffordshire, printers, as fir as regards R. Rob-
son—J. Loader and J. Nowell, Manchester, eating-
house keepers—J. rage and R. Ruling, jun., Milk-
street and Clcment's court, Cheapside, printers—T. E.
Rawson and A. H. Daniel, Keg,wortF, Loicettershire,
surgeons—T. Ste r, art and R. Dunderdale, Great Bolton,
Lancashire, tca dealers—C. Meigh, C. Meigh, jun., and
J. W. Pankhurst, Hanley, Staffordshire, earthenware
manufacturers (as far as regards J. W. Pankhurst)—J.
M. Burgess and Ann Colliason, Warrington, Lancashire,
boot and shoemakers—C. P. Harris and VV. Creke,
Birmingham, japauners and manuraeturers of papier
mache goods.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. _
_ _

W. Maxwell, Dundee, Merchant, to meet July 18 and
Aug. 12, at twelve, within the Royal Elotel, Dundee.
Ann Sutherland, Helmsdale, merchant, to meet
July 17 and Aug. 6, at eleven, within Hill's lun, Golspie.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.
MADRID AND VALENCIA.
On Friday the peremptory summons of the Court
of Chancery calling upon Mr. W. Chadwick, the late
chairman of this company, to appear before the Master
in Chancery Blunt, being returnable, the proceedings
commenced at twelve o'clock. Mr. Chadwick did not
appear, but was represented by his counsel Mr. Glasse,
and Mr. Rose, his solicitor. Mr. Selwyn appeared for
Quilter the official manager, to prosecute the case, and
affidavits were read setting forth the service of the
summons at the residences of the defendant, in Mon-
tague-square, and at Sydenham.
The specific charge against Mr. Chadwick consisted
in calling upon him to account for the application of
a cheque for 25,0001., drawn upon the bank of Messrs.
Masterman, in his own name and that of Mr. Lewis
Pocock, countersigned by Mr. Fowell, the secretary, and
" payable" to the finance committee of the Madrid and
Valencia Railway, in September, 1849. The other thir-
teen directors who had been summoned were also called
on to appear and explain to the court what knowledge, if
any, they had of this cheque, and on their names being
called over seriatim the legal representatives of the fol-
lowing gentlemen, Count Eyre, Hon. Pelham Villiers,
Mr. Montefiore, and Mr. Kinloch replied that their clients
had no knowledge of the cheque whatever. The non-
appearing directors were Captain Charettie, Mr. Culqu-
houn, Admiral Stopford, Mr. Waloy, Mr. M'Cann, and
Mr. Capper.
Witnesses were then called in proof of the charge, the
first being
Mr. Quilter, the official manager to the estate, who
deposed that the cheque in question was not forthcoming.
Application had been made to Mr. Fowell, the late se-
cretary of the company, for it, but it could not be ob-
tained.
Mr. Fowell examined—Had not the cheque in his
possession, but believed that it was returned in the usual
way with the other papers aad cheques by the bank to
Chadwick.
Mr. Glasse objected, unless the cheque was produced
in court, to go into any secondary evidence when there
was no proof of any such document being in existence;
but his Honour having overruled the objection.
Mr. Gifford Erck deposed to the existence of a sum of
25,0001. in Mastermans' bank, to the credit of the Madrid
and Valencia Railway, and to his having cashed the
cheque in question, which was signed by Chadwick,
Pocock, and Fowell, and was payable to the finance com-
mittee. It was paid through the clearing-house to
Messrs. Willis and Co., and the cheque had since, as was
usual with the bank, been delivered up to the officers of
the company. It was also signed by Mr. Win. L. Pal-
mer, who was not a director.
Mr. Fowell examined—Recollected Chadwick bringing
the cheque to him in September, 1849. It was signed
by himself and Lewis Pocock. On bringing it Chad.
wick said he proposed applying the amount of it to in-
vestments in Great Western Railway Shares for the
purposes of the Madrid and Valencia Railway. He said
the money loaned out to Overend and Gurney was only
fetching 2 per cent., and that by the plan he proposed it
might be increased to 5 per cent. Showed witness pur-
chases of Great Western Shares to the extent of
13,000/. with one stockbroker, and 13,000/. with
another. Chadwick further said that he should make a
transfer of the shares in blank, and call the finance com-
mittee together. Chadwick took the cheque from the
office, saying he should pay it into Messrs. Willis and
Co.'s,;'rye, to the account of Mr. rye, stockbroker, on ac-
count of purchases for him of Great Western stock. Wasin
Willis's
Rbaainlwkain;house accidentally, and saw Chad-
wickPa the cheque in. In September, 1849, there
were funds at Mastermans' belonging to the Madrid and
Valencia
were transferred. Tbheu
alidlidieldl,,Ctahpapteore, avvradillPiaomeocLko,waetalldrithalerareer
They
onst tohde
nl3 theth nameso f that
Chadwick,
t o
imr. j prevent. Ha. nTiynrtee, a ds
teodc
ka
bt traockhemr ns
it
was
a,wdwadshe who was nwaotathstehare namectem r k
to Mr. Knill, and, he believed, e
taidofhtehewafusnedms
polfuthede
company.
by Chadwick, in September, 1849, who told him that
he had placed to his credit, at Willis's' 25,0001, in
respect of the purchase of Great Western shares. Chad-
wick at that time was indebted to witness in some
40,0001. for different descriptions of shares. Had no
other dealings with Chadwick save on Chadwick's own
private account. Chadwick stated ho wanted 12,000/.
out of the 25,0001. and witness drew cheques, which
Chadwick had filed up with the name of" Henry John-
son," for 2,000/. and 3,0001. each, which were all paid.
Witness h-of no reason to suspect that the funds were
any other than Chadwick's own funds, and was sur-
prised from recent proceedings to find it was not so.

Thought that Chadwick raised the money on mortgage
or losn, for he was then in the highest credit. There
was now at least 5,0001. due from Chadwick to witness,
arising out of share speculations, many of which were
successful, hut on the whole he should say that Chad-
wick lost, though he used to say he acted on information
which frequently turned out to be erroneous.
Further evidence ac to the passing of the cheque
through the clearing house having been adduced,
Mr. SELWYN, called upon the Master, under the 66th
section of the Act of Parliament, which empowers the
Master during the progress of winding-up to call for
payment of balances from directors or contributories, to
make a peremptory order upon Chadwick for payment
of the 25,000/. to which, he contended, the shareholders
were prima facie entitled, and which the evidence went
to show had been appropriated by Chadwick, to his own
use.

Mr. GLASSE, on the contrary, contended in a long
address, that no cale whatever was made ont. The
cheque in question had not been produced, or even
shown to exist. Mr. Chadwick had not been per-
sonally served with the summons; it was shown
by affidavit that he was ill and unable to
attend, and at any rate it was only reasonable that time
should be granted to prepare a defence. Ile under-
stood that at the period tLe cheque was drawn on Mai-
termans, Chtdwick had a private account of his own
with the bank.

Lis
floNoun, on a review of the case, decided that
the Court could not tolerate longer delay. The evidence
was sufficiently clear upon the score of the money being
that cf the shareholders, and as counsel fir the e:tate
had observed that the case was of a kind that could not
be dealt with too summarily, he should direct an order
to be Tr.aee on Chadwick for the payment of the
25,000/. ou or before Monday week.
The Court then adjourned at half past three o'clock.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, July 12.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.)
William Bailey and Daniel Ensor were indicted, under
the 6th section of the 9th and 10th Victoria, c.
23, with having, on the 31st of March last, at the bo-
rough of Sheffield, feloniously and maliciously thrown
lib. weight of gunpowder and other explosive substance,
enclosed in a tin bottle, against the dwelling •house of
Mr. William Butcher, with intent to injure his house or
his property, and to ariim, disable, or do him other
bodily harm.
Mr. Bliss, Q C., and Mr. Overend appeared on be-
half of the prosecution; and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins for
the prisoner Bailey, and Mr. Dearsley for the prisoner
Ensor.

It appeared.that the prosecutor was a merchant and
manufacturer in the Sheffield trade, and in December
last his grinders all suddenly left his employment, in
consequence of which he had them summoned before a
magistrate fhr leaving his employm-•nt without notice,
and several of them were punished. The prisoners were
grinders, and on the night of the 31et of March
last Mr. Butcher, who lives at a place called Five
Cieks, on the Glossop-road, near Sheffield, was
awoke about two o'clock in the morning by
something thrown against his bedroom window which
struck violently against the window-sesh and broke one
of the panes of gloss. He instantly got out of bed, and
against his house ho saw reared a iadder, down which a
man appeared to be descending, and on the leads below
his window he saw a tin canister with a fusee burning
ettaehed to it. In a short times there was a loud exple•
sion like a cannon. Mrs. Butcher rang the alarm bell;
a watchman and a policeman iu the neighbourhood wort
alarmed, and saw four mea running towards them down
a lane leading from Mr. Butcher's house. Trio police-
man followed these men, and after considerable resist-
ance succeeded in capturing the prisoner Riney; the
other prisoner was afterwards taken into custody. One
of them afterwards made a statement to the police to the
effect that Mr. Botcher knew the men; that they were
grinders, and wanted t.) frighten him. It also appeared
that the two prisoners had been drinking wieh others all
the day previously to the commission of this outrage.
A tin canister, capable of holding about a pound weight
of gunpowder, was produced, the soldered top of
which had been blkevn off, and also a fusee and some
matches, which were found outside the prosecutor's house.
The Learned Counsel for the prisoners then severally
addressed the jury, contending that this was a foolish
and drunken freak by the prisoners or others to attempt
merely to frighten the prosecutor, and that the appear-
ance of the tin can showed that it had contained but a
very small portion cf gunpowder, sufficient only fur
such a purpose, and that if the prisoners or others had
intended to do damage to the prosecutor's hence, they
might have effectually done that by throwing the
tin canister in the conservatory adjoining the prosecu-
tor's house.

The JUDGE having summed up,
The jury found both the prisoners Guilty.
Sentence was deferred.
Auguste Mauritz and Charles A:brecht, two Swiss,
were indicted for having stolen, on the 18th of March
last, a gold watch and about 351. in money, the property
of John Gray Scott. There was another charge against
the two prisoners for having committed a larceny at
Leeds, on the 20:h of March.
Mr. Ellis appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Sergeant
Wilkins defended the prisoner
.Albrecht, and Mr. Ma-
thews the prisoner Mauritz.
At the opening of the case the prisoner Maui's, by
the advice of his c_einsel, pleaded guilty.
It appeared that the prosecutor, a commercial travel-
ler from Manchester, slept on the 18th of March lest at
the Angel Hotel in Sheffield. He did not fasten his bed-
room door, and on going to bed placed his gold watch on
the dressing-table. In his coat pocket on a chair wet
his purse, containing 351. in notes, gold, and silver, the
property of his employers. On getting up next morn-
ing his watch and money were gone. Inquiries were
made, and the two prisoners were followed to Leeds, and
afterwards apprehended at Rugby station. In the carpet-
bag of Albrecht was found the gold watch of the prose
cuter, and on his person an Irish fivepenny bit which the
prosecutor had lost.
For the defence of Albrecht, the Learned Sergeant
stated that the prisoner was a respectable merchant et
Berne, in Switzerland, and had come over t this
country to make purchases of English goods,) he no;
being able to speak English. On the morning
after the robbery ha was going from Barnsley to
Leeds, and met the other prisoner by acci-
dent in the railway carriage. Delighted to meet with a
person who could speak his language, ho accompanied
him to Leeds, where the two went into a coffee-house
in Leeds, and the prisoner Mauritz asked him to place a
small package in his bag as his own was full. This
was which contained the stolen perperty and
also k
Leeds.ilver spoons which had been stolen at Lee.
pAatcßsau°ginge it w
Rugby, the prisoner Albrecht paid for some refresh •
merit for Mauritz, who was in the station, and Mauriiz
repaid him, giving him as part payment the fivepenny
bit which had been stolen from the prosecutor.
The prisoner Mauritz, who had pleaded guilty, was
sworn, and gave evidence of these facts; and it was also
proved that the prisoner occupied a respectable position
at Berne.
Mr. Enus having replied,
His LORDSHIP summed up; and
The jury (which, at the request of the prisoners, was
de medietate lingua) found the prisoner Albrecht Not
Guilty.
Mr. Hunter, who prosecuted in the other case,
offered no evidence, and an acquittal was taken upon it.
Sentence was not passed on the prisoner Mauritz.
July 13.
The cause list contains an entry of 43 causes for the
West Riding, of which eight are marked for special
juries ; and six from the North and East Ridiew, of
which two we marked for special juries. S) few raises
were probably never before known ; many of them are,
however, said to be heavy, and if tried will occupy the
usual time.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGEITMAN.)

II'GREGOR V. BLUEEY.

This was an action on the case for :eduction.
Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff. The action
was undefended.

It appeared that the plaintiff was an overlooker in a
manufactory at Leeds, and the defendant is a married
man, at whose house the plaintiff's daughter was in the
habit of visiting. Oa one occasion in the absence of
the defendant's wi'e, the plaintiff's daughter went to the
defendant's house, when an improper intercourse
took which was afterwards renewed, the plain-
tiff's
daughter sleeping with the defendant ; the con-
s which w.s she gave birth to an illegiti-
mate child. _
e u e place,nce of

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages 201.
The other causes triel in the course of the day were
devoid of iNterest.

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.)
Enoch Price and Henry Batty, two youths, were in-
dieted for highway robbery, on the 4th of last June,
on an old lady, named Ann Lister, at Arksey, near
Demeter.
Mr. Hall and Mr. Boothby prosecuted, and Mr. Ser-
geant Wilkins defended the prisoner Price.
It appears that the prosecutrix, who resides at Bently,
in the neighbourhood of Doncaster, was, on the evening
of the 4th of June, on her way home, having with her
a bag or reticule, when she was met by three men dis-
guise in their dress, and one of them, the prisoner
Price, having his Lee muffled up, who presented a brace
of pocket-pistols at her, and threatened to shoot her if
she did not give up her reticule. This she did do under
this threat. The reticule contained some groceries. An
accomplice named Fogg, in whose possession the reticule
was found, stated that he and the two prisoners turned
their coats on the night in question, and, ling down in
the road, pretended to be drunk, and then robbed the
prosecutrix as she had stated. The prisoner Price was
identified by the prosecutrix.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS having addressed the jury,
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury found the
prisoners both Guilty. Sentence was dt ferred.
Charles Sutcliffe was indicted, on his own confession,
with a highway robbery on William Hanson on the night
of Monday, the 24th of July, near Bradford.
Mr. Bower prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended.
It appeared that on the night in question, the prose-
cutor was robbed by seven men, five of whom were tried
at the winter gaol delivery of 1848, and transported. On
the 2d of May last the prisoner went to the office of
Messrs. Tolson, Clough, acd Taylor, solicitors, Bradford,
and there made a voluntary confession that he was one
of the men who had robbed Hanson. That conf ssioa
was afterwards reduced into writing and he signed it.
He was afterwards taken before the magistrates, when
he repeated the same statement, and was committe I for
trial. Li that confession the prisoner stated that three
of the men transported for the robbery, Lightewler,
Clifford, and Hall, were innocent, and that he himself
was one of the men w ho committed it. The prosocuror
was called and gave evidence of the robbery, but stated
that he
who robbNl him. When celled on for his def,nco, (00
WaS positive the prisoner was not one of the men
prisoner said that the brother of Clifford had got hold of
hinl and kept him a month at his house until he had

committed to memory the story he had told to the
magistrates; that he gave him 3/. to go and tell it, and
promised him 100/., as it might get his brother pardoned,
and that he (the prisoner) knew nothing whatever about
the robbery.
The Learned JUDGE having left the facts to the jury,
The jury found the prisoner Not Guilty.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARYLEBONE.

Alm Elizabeth Hunt, who was stated to be a Lidy of
property, was charged on a summons, which bad been
obtained against her by Mr. Henry Thomas, secretary
to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, with gross cruelty to a dot, the property of
Mrs. Scott, whose residence is in St. John's. wood.
A solicitor attended for the defendant, who occupies
apartments in Mrs. Scott's house.
Mary Skelly, deposed that she was working for com-
plainant on the 29th ult., at her house, as a charwoman,
and that about two o'clock in the afternoon, after some
high words had taken place between the parties (the
nature of which quarrel witness was not acqulinted
with), she saw Mrs. Hunt take up Mrs. Scott's little dog
and use it mast cruelly.
Mr. YARDLEY—ExpIain to me particularly what you
mean.

Witness—Si•a seized hold of the poor little creature,
and throwing it down stairs, dashed it against the wall,
in cons,^quence of which one of its legs was broken.
Mr. YARDLEY—She was, of course, made acquainted
with the injury she had done? Complainant—She was,
sir; but di.,l not express the least regret. She kicked
my cat also, and is the last person i❑ the world, in my
opinion, to be sorry fcr any act of cruelty which she
might commit.
The witnesses were cross-examined by the solicitor,
but their testimony was by no means shaken.
The answer to the charge was, that the defendant
merely put the dog out of her room, and that if the leg
w, re broken it must hare teen caused by the animal
failing down stairs. _ _

Mr. YARDLEY inflicted a fine of 51. on the defendant
and in default of payment to he imprisoned one month.

LAMBETH.

Mr. Richard Searle, a retired master-baker, of con-
siderable wealth, residirg at No. 1, Gloucester-place,
Cowley-real, North Brixton, sixty-four years of age,
was summoned before the Hon. G. C. Norton, under the
Bastardy Act, charged with neglecting to support his
illegitimate child.
Tae circumstances relative to this case are of a very
extraordinary kind, the complainant being fifty years of
age, and the defendant sixty-four, and both holding re-
spec able positions in society.
The complainant, also was guadily attired in a very
antique style of fashion, stated that her name was Char-
lotte Matilda Croeks, and thet she was a widow residing
near Mr. Searles, whom she had known for some years.
After her husband's death, the defendant paid fre-
quent visits t her, and the result of such intimacy was
the birth of a girl, seven wet ks ago. When she was in
the family way dereadant seemed much pleased, and told
her that he would do all he could to support the baby.
After the child was born ho made the same offer in the
presence of two witnesses. In cross-examination, she
sail that prier to her husband's death she had seen
other gentlemen.
Mrs. Farley, the lady of the house in which com-
plainant resided, proved that she was delivered of a fine
bouncing girl, in her house seven weeks ago. The child
was exactly like its " papa" (Mr. Searle), who was sent
f.)r the same morning, and seemed greatly surprised at
seeing the baby. He was so delighted at being the
father, that he promised to support it as long as it lived.
Mr. NORTON said the evidence was conclusive, and
he must make an order on the defendant to pay 2s. 6d.
a week towards the support of the child ; but he mast
remark that it was a very extraordinary case, and that
"wonders never cease."
HAMMERSMITH.

Ambrose Garrett, a respect ably dressed young
man, was charged before 111 r. Payntcr with being in
a dwelling house for an unlawful purpose. Miss
Mary Parkinson, an eZega,ntly dressed lady, residing
in Norlandeerrace, Notting-hill, said she had been
out of towns fortnight, and had, on leaving town, given
st-iet orders to her two maid-servants not to have follow-
ers. In cons( quence, however, of a letter she had on
the previous day received from a friend, informing her
that a young man was in the habit of coming to the
house, and staying until a late hour at night, she came
to town that morning unexpectedly, and took a police-
constable to the house with her, when, finding the de-
fendant in the house with the servants she at once gave
him into custody. She had no doubt that was the way
that houses were frequently robbed when the owners
wore away. She had, however, not missed anything,
and had made no inquiries about the defendant, who was
a perfect stranger to her. The &fondant, in a strong
north-country dialect, stated that he was a farmer's
son, just come from Newcastle to prove his father's
will. He had fallen in with Elizabeth, who was cook to
Miss Parkinson, and made known his mind to. her;"
but her brother bad objected to the match, until he was
satisfied of his respectability, and he had gone to the
house to arrange meetings between his solicitor and the
brother of Elizabeth for that purpose. On this occasion
he had gone there to take the ring and name the day,
when Elie. ;both ran in out of breath, and said, " Oh,
here's Missus come with a policeman to take you away,"
and he said, " Never mind, lass; I have neither stolen
anything nor eaten anything, so let them take me." He
then explained the matter as well as he could to the lady,
but she would give him into custody.
Miss Parkinson said she considered that the cook bad
most grossly misconducted herself in admitting persons
to her house against her order, and she should dismiss
her at once, _

De endant—Oh, plow., ma'am, let me stop here until
you see it you have lost anything, but don't throw sus-
picion on the character of Elizabeth till you find you
hare.

Mr. PAYNTER said that Miss Parkinson had been too
hasty in giving the defendant into custody without
making some inquiries,although the servant was wrong
in receiving visitors against for orders. It appeared,
however, that there was no reason for supposing that
the defendant was i❑ the house for any unlawful pur-
pose, and he should, therefore, discharge him.
Miss Parkinson thought that thero should be some
way of punishing such persons as the defendant.
The defendant having thanked the magistrate, left the
court in the direction of Notting-hill, no doubt to re-
ceive his Elizabeth, should she be turned out of the house
by her mistress.