The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QNEEN'S BENCH, Dcc. 12.
WELLS V. KING.

(Continued fromiour Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. HUNFREY replied on the dAandant's case. He
said the case kid now assumed a very serious appear-
ance, because it was certain that perjury had been com-
mitted either on the one side or the other. He could
understand a man uttering counterfeit money with the
view of getting change out of it; but this was the first
time in his lite that he had heard of a ma❑ giving
another person a bad shilling for no consideration what-
ever, which was what the plaintiff had done to Rowe.
The Learned JUDGE having summed np,
The jury found a verdict for the defendant,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 12.
DOYLE V. THURSTON.

The plaintiff in this case is Mr. Doyle, part proprietor
of the Weekly Chronicle, and the action was brought
against the defendant, who is a sheriff's officer, for ille-
gally arresting him on the 4th of May, in the place of
sir. Dillon, a gentleman also engaged on the same paper.
Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Welsby appeared
.for the
plaintiff, and Mr. E. James and Mr. Ha likins conducted
the defence.

Mr. Sergeant ALLEN briefly stated the case, and pro-
ceeded to call witnesses for the plaintiff.
Mr. Thomas Clancey, messenger at the Weekly
Chronicle office, said that on the 4th of May, 1850,
the defendant Thurston came into the office with
a letter in his hand, and giving the name of Smith,
asked to ace Mr. Dillon. Wi►ness then went up stairs
to a room where Mr. Dillon and Mr. Doyle were, with
the letter in his hand, which was directed to Mr. Dillon,
and told him that a person down stairs wanted to see
him. Mr. Doyle took the letter and said he would go
down. Mr. Doyle then went down stairs into the room
where Mr. Thurston was, and witness kit them. Shortly
afterwards Mr. Doyle and Thurston came down, and
Mr. Doyle said to witness " This man has arrest,,d me
in place of Mr. Dillon, am I Mr. Dillon?" Witness
assured Thurston that it was Mr. Doyle, but Thurston
persisted in taking him. Mr. Doyle, and they left the
office together.

Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES—Mr. Doyle and Mr.
Dillon were upstairs together, dressing. Mr. Doyle took
the letter in his hand, but he did not see him open it.
Did not see Mr. Dillon get into a cupboard which was
in the room, but had beard that he had done so.
Mr. Allen said that o❑ the 4th of May he was sent
fur to the Weekly Chronicle office, and shown into a
room there, where he found Mr. Doyle and the defen-
dant. Mr. Doyle said " This man has arrested me as
Mr. Dillon; will you tell him whether I am Mr. Dillon?"
Witness told Thurston that that was Mr. Doyle.
Thurston said " Oh, no; I can't be mistaken, the
whiskers are enough."—(l.4aughter.) Thurston persisted
that it was Mr. Dillon, and said he would
not leave the place without him. They all three went
down stairs together, and Mr. Doyle appealed to the
persons there as to whether he was Mr. Dillon or not.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. EDWIN JAMES addressed the jury for the de-
fendant: He contended that in this case Mr. Doyle bad
put himself in the place of Mr. Dillon, and be must
take the consequences of such an imposition.
John Foote said that on the 4th of May he was pre-
sent at the Weeny Chronicle office; the defendant came.
He saw Mr. Doyle and the defendant come down stairs;
and Mr. Doyle appealed to the witness to say whether
he was Mr. Doyle or Mr. Dillon. He assured him that
it was Mr. Doyle; and then Mr. Thurston left the pffice
alone, and Mr. Doyle remained for at least a quarter of
an hour.

Mr. H. W. Russell, of the Weekly Chronicle, said, that
..n the 4th of May, about one o'clock in the day, he had
occasion to go to a cupboard in the editor's room at the
eekly Chronicle office, and, on opening the door, all
the papers fell out, and he saw a pair of legs hanging
down. On looking up, he saw Mr. Dillon perched up on
a pile of papers. Mr. Dillon told him not to make a
noise, and not to let any one know that he was there.
Mr. Doyle afterwards told him of the affair, and said
that when he opened the letter the officer took him for
Dillon and arrested him.

John Caple said that he was a sheriff 'a officer's
assistant, and had gone with Thurston to the Weekly
Chronicle office to arrest Mr. Dillon. No arrest was
made, and would swear that Mr. Doyle did not go with
them.

Mr. Sergeant ALLEN replied at some length.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, and
The jury returned a verdict fur the plaintiff—
Damages, 40s.

LORD MAYOR'S GOURI; Dce. 12.
(Before tho RECORDER and a ;-'prcial Jury.)
THE CORPORATION OF LONDON AND BARTLEY.

This was an inquiry to ascertain and assess the amount
of damages, by way of compensation, the claimant (Mr.
131rtle.y, carrying on the business of the London City
Tea Commission Company in Cannon-street) would
sustain by the compulsory removal of his business, the
premises occupied by him in Cannon-street being re-
quired by the Corporation of London fur the purpose of
the new improvements from London•b:idgo to St. Paul's
Churchyard. The value of the premises and interest
therein, 4,5001., was not in dispute, the inquiry being
confined to the loss of trade by removal.
Sir Frederic Thesiger, Mr. Edwin James, and Mr.
Locke, appeared for the complainant; and Sir Fitzroy
Kelly, the Common Sergeant, Mr. Ryland, and Mr.
Randal, on behalf of the Corporation.
In support of the claim, a large body of evidence was
gone into, principally deduced from the books of the,
claimant by Mr. Ball, au accountant, by which it was
sought to he shown that during the last seven years the
returns of the claimant in his business exceeded
132,000/, and that his average net profit on such returns
exceeded 1,6001. per annum; and he claimed.in respect
of the loss he would sustain by removal three years'
purchase on that sum, 4,8001.; it was, however, shown
that, by far the larger portio❑ of the returns arose from
country business, and which, it was contended, would
not be materially affected by removal, no allowance
having also been made for losses by bad debts during
that period.

Si; FITZROY KELLY addressed the jury at great
length, and pointed out. the distinction which the jury
ought to make in assesitng the amount of compensation
with relation to tLat, portion of the profits arising from
country business, and in respect to which the Learned
Counsel contended no claim for compensation could
exist, and which ought to be strictly confined to a fair
and reasonable compensation for the loss that might be
sustained in the retail trade only, one year's profit on
which would he ample compensation.

The RECORDER having summed up the evidence,
The jury, after half an hour's consideration, returned
a verdict for 1,2001., and 1051. for fixtures.

BA.ItIE AND IIARFORD.
A verdict by consent for 1,000/. was taken in this case,

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 12.
(Brfore Mr. Commissioner 14.7NANs.)
IN RE WARNER.

The bankrupt is the inventor of a projectile which
ready,
and an adjournment of the
agreed upon. Tho accounts
has been much talked of as " Warner's Long Range."
arellis aiene co examinationouunrtss ewmoeefreet notnrgep wasarreaadt ion by Messrs. Harding and
Pullein, and from them the bankrupt's debts would ap-
pear to be about 14,0001.; but with respect to the amount
of assets they will materially depend upon the validity of
the bankrupt's claim of 100,000/. against the Portuguese
Government.

Mr. RIDDELL, for the bankrupt, in asking for an ad-
journment, said that, in order to arrive at a true state of
the bankrupt's affairs, it would be necessary that the ac-
counts should extend over many years.
Mr. Le.waiNcE, for the assignees, did not object to the
adjournment.—Adjourned accordingly.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.

John Doherty, a man above sixty years of age, was
placed at the bar before Sir John Key, Bart., charged
with uttering a forged cheque for 721., with intent
to defraud Messrs. Gosling and Sharpe, bankers,
Fleet-street.

Mr. Bush, of the firm of Bush and Mullen!,
solicitors to the Society for the Protection of Bankers,
Merchants, and others from Fraud and Forgery, con-
ducted the prosecution on behalf of Messrs. Gosling
and Co.

Mr. Edward Payne said I am cashier to Messrs.
Gosling and Co., of Fleet. street. About four o'clock,
or a little after, on Wednesday afternoon, prisoner
presented a cheque for 72/., dated December 7, 1850,
and purporting to be signed by "Thomas Harrison."
The cheque produced is the same as presented by the
prisoner. Mr. Harrison keeps an account at Messrs.
Gosling's bank. The cheque is written on plain
paper, and resembles Mr. Harrison's handwriting
very much, and is in fact a 'nest excel-
lent imitation. I hesitated in paying it at once
on account of the general appearance of the cheque
being somewhat different to those tivally sent by
Mr. Harrison. I asked him if he knew Mrs. Harri-
son, to whom the cheque was made payable, and he
replied in the negative. I then asked him how he
obtained it, and he said from Mr. Harrison, who was
then staying at the Hyde-park Hotel. I asked him
in what way he would have the money, and he said
he would like four 101. notes, and the rest (321) in
gold. He had a canvas money-bag in his hand,
similar to the one since found on him et the station,
in which he intended to deposit the money. I thought
his statement rather unsatisfactory, and accordingly
carried the cheque to Mr. John Beattie (the clerk
who has the care of the vouchers), and compared it
with other paid drafts of Mr. Harrison's. It did not
sufficiently reaemble them, and I referred the matter