The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-27 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, June 26.

IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL GRENVILLE FLETCHER.
This insolvent, who had been proprietor of the Kentish
Champion, weekly newspaper, ILK lied to be discharged.
He had been nearly two years in prison, five months of
which time he had b. ea seriously ill, and bad b en pre-
vented from making an earlier application for the want
of means. He had published some " Parliamentary
Portraits," and had been secr,tary to a company
the Hydraulic Telegraph Company, which had been
provisionally registered.
Mr. Holl, a wine-merchant, opposed on the ground
that the insolvent had obtained goods from him to nearly
101., end he had rued him in a county court.
It appeared that a friend of the insolvent had offered
some of his creditors a composition of 4s. in the pound,
which was refused.
Mr. Commissioner LAW was of opinion that Mr. Holl
had good cause of complaint, but whether he would
pt-ess his case rested with him. It was the insolvent's
fault that he had remained so long in confinement.
The case stood adjuuttiod fur 11 Week to 50349
Ptall4 WPM'

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
ROW-STREET.
Edward Ilawkes, a letter-e Trier, was charged will
ate ding a Mier cows, ning a valuable miniature, set ai
bra i eh.

Information was given at the General Pos,-office re-
specting the loss of a letter and its contents, which had
bt.en sent by Mr. J. Pike, a ;jeweller at Chatham, to
Messrs. Alexander, of Hatton-gardt-n. The usual tt at of
honesty was applied to the servants in the department
through which the letter passed, and the prisoner was
detected—having stolvn a trap letter containing a
mark.d hal.-sovereign. The coin w4s found upon him
and the brooch was afterwards taken from a box at his
lodgings.
Mr. HENRY committed him for trial.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
A lady asked the advice of Mr. Bingham in the fol-
lowing case:—
She saw in a shop, 96, Oxford-street, a mantle
marked a guinea which suited her, and she went in
and bought it. She put down the guinea, but was told
she must pay another halt-guineA, tvii the price %%14 a
cuinea and a halt. She cketined Taking the mantle at
that price, and requested to have her money returned.
This was refu,cd, and she was compril,d to pav the h.lll-
- As she cone, ived she had been inipoed upon
~tie wished to know if she bad any mode of ohrsining
r ress.

Mr. BiNatiAm said a magistrate could render no a,-
sis!ance, but ne had no doubt she could procure redress
at the ot..unty court.
A second lady came forward and male a precisely
mitar statement, but the occurrence took place in ano-
ther shop in Oxford-street, the number of which was not
stated. The lad; said she had been terrified into giving
the additional price
Mr. BINGHem gave this lady the same advice as he had
given to the former one.
AI A IIYLEBONE.
Mr. Assheton Smith a gentleman of considerable pro-
perty. residing ut L 3, H)de-park-gardens, attended ne-
fore Mr. Broughton, by vii tue of a summons which had
been obtained against him for assaulting Richard John
Kent Herring, a youth fi.feen yt ars t f age, whose father
is a solicitor in Stafford-street, Maryieb.ne.
Mr. Herring attended on behalf of his son, and Mr.
Randall for the defendant, who was accompanied to
the court by two Members of Parliament and other

friends.
Mr. Herring. upon the case being called on, remarked
that he hoped there would be no distinction made, and
that the defendant, however high his station in life
might be, ought to take up his pasition in the place
usually occupied by persons when charged under similar
circumstances. The gentleman added that, while in
the court, defendant had assaulted his (Mr. Herring's)
clerk, for which offence he would probably be proceeded
against elsewhere.
Mr. BROUGHToN said it was no unusual occurrence at
the Old Bailey for a party accused to be allowed to sit
by the side of his counsel.
Defendant here left his seat and stood at one end of
the attorneys' table in front of the Leitch.
Mr. Herting detailed at some length the particulars
connected with the affair, and tke following evidence
was adduced:—
Complainant said—On the morning of the 24th inst.
I was sent by my father to defendant's house for the
purpose of serving him with a copy of a writ. The
footman was standing at the door, and I asked him if
Mr. Smith lived there; to which he replied that he
did, but that he was then engaged with a gentleman.
He asked me my business and my name ; when
I told him that my business was particular,
and that I wished to.see Mr. Smith himself. He said be
did not think Mr. Smith would see me without knowing
my name and the reason for my calling, when I told him
that my name was Herring, and repeated that my busi-
ness was of a particular nature. He asked me if I would
come in and sit down in the hall, which I did; and pre-
sently the butler came end qu-,stioned me as to my
name, &c., and I gave him the same answer which I had
given to the footman. He left me, and in about an hour
and a half afterwards a gentleman, who I imagined at
the time to be Mr. Smith, went out of the house, and,
jumping into a cab in waiting at the door, was driven off.
The butler came and asked me my name a second time,
and on my telling him what it was. he opened a door and
went into a room, and soon afterwards Mr. Smith made
his appearance. I asked him if his name was A isheton
Smith, and he said Yest, it is; what 4o you want? " I
then put my hard into my pocket, and took therefrom a
writ and a copy, and holding out the copy told him (Mr.
Smith) that I had a writ against him, when he said, "If
lon come presenting any of your writs to Ere give
you a good licking. Get out of my house directly."
tie put his fist up within three or four inches of my
face, and on the footman, by his directions, opening the
door, I qui'ted the place.
Mr. BRoUGUTON (to Mr. Randall)—What answer is
there to this? Mr. Randall—Mr. Smith has just inti-
mated to me that he wishes to make his own statement
and to call his witnesses.
Mr. Smith—l deny the truth r f the greater part, of
what complainant has stated. I admit having said that
I would give him a good licking.
The tootman and the butler were called, and their evi-
dence, particularly that of the former (who, however,
prevaricated considerably in some ins'auces), was con-
tradictory of the moat material portions of complainant's
allegation. The witnesses underwent a severe cross-ea-
amtnation by Mr. Herring.
The MAGISTRATE felt that be should not be justified
from the coLtltcting nature of the evidence, in commit-
ting the defendant, and the summons was therefore dia..
misstd.