The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-18 00:00:00

NG, DECEMBER 18 1841.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 17.

(Sittings at Nisi P;ius, at the Guildhall, before Lord
DENMAN and a London Spesial Jury.)
TOTTIE V.IIOLMEB AND ALLEN.

The plaintiff in this case is a civil engineer, and the
defendants are attorneys, carrying on business in lied=
ford-row. The action was brought to recover the amount
of a bill sent in by the plaintiff to the defendants of
1,8061. 13s. 9d., for engineering, which he alleged he had
been employed by the defendants to perform. It appeared
that somewhere about the latter end of 1842, the defen-
dants, who were attorneys, thought it would be advan-
tageous to form a railway to be called the Middlesex
and Surrey Grand Junction Railway Company, and en-
tered into communication on the subject with the plain-
tiff, who was to be the engineer to the proposed company,
and with a Mr. Smith, who was to be the secretary. The
original plan was for a railway from Southall to Twick-
enham, with a braneh to Richmond. Tottie was at that
time about to leave the service of the Eastern Counties
Railway, and be undertook to make the survey. He
then suggested that it would be advantageous to extend
the railway so as to make it a junction railway, joining
all the railways approacihng the metropolis. The propo-
sition was acceded to, and the surveys were made for the
formation of a line from Harrow to Reigate, thus con-
necting the Birmingham, the Great Western, and the
Dover lines. These surveys were deposited with the
clerk of the peace. During this time the defendants had
paid plaintiff 501. a month according to agreement, and
he had received from them 630/. in all. The company
was formed, and plaintiff was appointed engineer, but
the scheme was finally given up in the beginning of the
present year, and then the plaintiff had brought this
action. The plans were put in, as were various letters
which had passed between plaintiff and defendants. A
witness, named Burleigh, who had been employed by
plaintiff, proved that the work had been done ; and Mr.
Braithwaite, the engineer to the Eastern Counties Rail-
way, deposed that the plans were moat carefully exe-
cuted, and that the charges were such as were usually
made. For the defence, it was contended that the 6301.
which had been paid to the plaintiff by defendants was
all that he was entitled to by agreement, inasmuch as it
was proved from his letters that he had agreed to take
50/. a month, as the amount of his expenses from the de
fendants, and that he looked for his profits to the pro-
posed company. He had undertaken to make the sur-
veys in the hope of being appointed engineer to the
company, in the same manner as the defendants had
undertaken the legal portion of the business in the hope
of becoming solicitors to the proposed company, and as
Mr. Smith had executed his duties in the hope of being
appointed secretary ; and therefore he had no claim
upon defendants beyond the 501. a month, which he had
agreed to accept for the expenses incurred, and which
they had regularly paid him.
In the course of his speech, Mr. MARTIN, who ap-
peared for the defendants, read several documents signed
by plaintiff, one of which stated that he should look to the
Provisional Board of Directors, as soon as such should
be formed, for his remuneration ; and another, that, in
consideration of a note of hand from Messrs. Allen and
Holmes for 1001., which he had received, he exonerated
them from all liabilities up to that date.
At the conclusion of Mr. Martin's address, the jury
intimated that they were prepared to deliver their ver-
dict; and a hint was thrown out by Lord Denman as to
the possibility of coining to some settlement. A con-
sultation took place, and it was ultimately arranged that
a juror should be withdrawn.
Mr. 'Watson conducted the plaintiff's case, and Mr.
Martin appeared for the defendants.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)

Hew Byrne, the captain of a merchant vessel, sur-
rendered to answer an indictment passed under the
Act of Parliament of the sth and 6th Williatn IV.,
commonly called the Merchant Seaman's Act, charg-
ing him with having unlawfully deserted Charles
Robert Rowe, one of the seamen on board his vessel,
at Port Nelson, without lawful cause, and not having
a certificate from the authorities of that place autho-
rising him to do so.
Mr. Ryland conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Clarkson appeared for the defendant.

From the-statement of the Learned Counsel for the
prosecution, and the evidence of the first mate of the
vessel, it appeared that the defendant was the captain
of a barque called the Himalaya, and in the beginning
of 1843 he was about to sail on a voyage to New
Zealand and South America. Rowe, it seems, was a
lad eighteen or nineteen, and having a strong desire
to go to sea, contrary to the wish of his friends, they
at length consented, and his father placed him in the
charge of the defendant, and he was rated as an ordi-
nary seaman, and sailed in that capacity; Nothing
particular -occurred until the vessel arrived at New
Plymouth, when Rowe went on shore, and, on his
not returning, it was found necessary to send the con-
stables after him, and he was brought by force on
board the ship. He then expressed his regret for
what had occurred, and promised amendment ; and he
again resumed his duty and sailed to Port Nelson,
but on the way thither the crew broke open a cask
which contained a quantity of bottled porter,
and the complainant was found to be drunk in
the hold, and a bottle of the beer was dis-
covered on his chest. On his being remon-
strated with by the captain he was insolent, and said
he would not do any more duty ; and upon the vessel
arriving at Port Nelson he was taken before a magis-
trate, and charged with neglecting his duty and
getting drunk, and the magistrate fined him twenty
shillings, and in default sentenced him to be impri-
soned for ten days ; and at the expiration of this
period, as the complainant did not come on board the
vessel, the defendant sailed without him. In cross-
examination the witnesses said that the complainant
had repeatedly said, while at Port Nelson, that he
would never go on board the -- ship again, and
that when the constable attempted to take him down
to the beach, he resisted him, and got away. It was
admitted that the defendant had not obtained of the
magistrate at Port Nelson the certificate which would,
in law, have justified him in leaving the man behind.
Mr. CLaaxsoN, in his address to the jury on be-
half of the defendant, commented, in his usual able
manner, upon the facts that had been disclosed in the
course of the case, but at the same time said he was
fearful he could not rescue his client from a verdict of
guilty, inasmuch as he had not acted up to the strict
letter of the Act of Parliament, in obtaining a certi-
ficate of the magistrate at Port Nelson. He argued,
however, that it was perfectly clear the complainant
had virtually abandoned the vessel, and that he never
intended to return to his duty, and the extent of the
offence imputed to the defendant was, that he had
neglected to apply for a certificate to that effect, which
he would, no doubt, easily have obtained, and this would
have entirely shielded him from the present charge.
He said that his client was exceedingly anxious for
the sake of his character that he should lay before the
jury some evidence in support of this statement, and
although he, the Learned Counsel, was fearful that it
could not weigh with the jury in their ultimate de-
cision, yet it would be a satisfaction to the defendant
and his friends to have it shown that he was not
guilty of the wanton and reckless conduct of wilfully
deserting one of his seamen in a foreign land.
Mr. French, the surgeon of the vessel, and other
witnesses were then called, and they deposed that
when the period of the complainant's imprisonment
at Port Nelson had expired, endeavours were made to
get him on board the vessel, but he refused to go,
and repeatedly, with an oath, declared that he would
never go on board the ship again, and that he resisited
the constable with considerable violence when he at-
tempted to convey him on board.
_ _

E.R. Arthur, the owner of the Himalaya, proved
that the defendant had sailed in her for five years,
and had, during the whole of that time, conducted
himself with very great propriety; and also that he
was particularly humane and attentive to his crew.

Several other respectable witnesses also gave the
defendant a high character for general good conduct,
and particularly for humanity and attention to the
wants of his crew.

The RECORDER, in summing up, said there did not
appear :to be any imputation upon the character or
conduct of the defendant out of this transaction; but
it appeared clear, from the evidence, he had not ful-
filled that duty the Act of Parliament under which
the indictment was found, and which had a very im-
portant object, required of him. It was very neces-
sary for the protection of seamen engaged in the
merchant service, that the Act of Parliament should
be strictly carried out ; and if the jury believed the
evidence, it was clear ie defendant had infringed its
provisions, and that he had neglected his duty in not
obtaining a certificate from the magistrate at Port
Nelson, stating, if it really were the cese, that the
complainant had deserted the vessel.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict of Guilty, but at the same time strongly re-
commended
the defendant to the merciful considera-
tion of the Court.

The RECORDER sentenced the defendant to pay a
fine of 20/. to the Queen.
The fine was immediately paid, and the defendant
left the Court, accompanied by his friends.
In the course of the day, the grand jury returned
true hills against Joseph Elder and William Burgess,
for the forgery upon the Bank of England.

DETENTION OF A HOUSEBREAKER.—A namesake
of the celebrated Jock Sheppard was on Monday lost
apprehended by Superintendent Russell, at the llen and
Chickens, in this town. From information received by
the superintendent, he thought it advisable to pay a
passing visit to the house in question ; accordingly on
the evening of Monday last he " dropped in," like Paul
Pry, " hoping he did'nt intrude," and in a short time
dropped on a very suspicious-looking personage, who,
with his female companion, had been domiciling at that
establishment since the previous Thursday. At the
sight of the officer the veritable " Jack" became
alarmed—and this circumstance, combined with the
finding of seventeen skeleton keys and two jemmies,
made out a case sufficiently strong to warrant the super-
intendant in apprehending him. This he accordingly
did, aad the next morning he was taken before the bench
of magistrates, wi,o comi,lering " prevention far better
than cure," dispatched the worthy to grind corn or
wind, as the case might be, at the celebrated Northleach '
mill, for the term of three calendar months.--Cheltenham
Journal.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Yesterday Mr. James James, saddler, No. 8, Bentinek-
street, Berwick-street, was summoned before Mr. Maltby,
by Elizabeth Heslam, for an assault.
The complainant, a good-looking Yorkshire girl, said
she had lived with the defendant as servant for some
weeks, during which period her master had made many
amorous ottrtures to her, all of which she had rejected.
Her master had also offered her money on several occa-
sions—first a shilling, next half-a-crown, and lastly a
sovereign, which, acting under her mistress's sanction,
who was put in possession of the defendant's proceedings,
she consented to receive. On Friday last her mistress
was sent for to attend her father, who was very ill, in
order that she might remain all night. Before her mis-
tress left home she (complainant) told her she did not
like to remain alone with her master in the house, but her
mistress told her not to mind, but to take care how she
allowed anything improper to occur. As soon as her
mistress had left the house, the defendant came into the
kitchen, and, after placing himself in a chair, began to
pull her about. She resisted, and the defendant then got
up and shut the door. The defendant gave her a sove-
reign, which she took, and lie proceeded to attempt
further liberties. The defendant was only induced to
leave off his improper behaviour, on complainant telling
him that some one was coming. As soon as complainant
got rid of her master she called one of the boys, and told
him she was going out of the house, and should not re-
turn all night. Complainant accordingly left the house,
and did not eater it again until the next day, by which
time her mistress had returned home. She immediately
told her ,mistress of her master's behaviour, and also
made her acquainted with the fact of his having given
her a sovereign. Her mistress told her to keep the
money, as nothing was freer than a gift, and then sent
for her husband, that he might hear the charge against
him. A soon as the defendant entered the room, com-
plainant said she began to tell the particulars of his con-
duct to her on various occasions, but the defendant would
iwt let her proceed, for he shook his fist at her in a me-
/lacing manner, and then took her by the back of tke
neck and pushed her violently out of the place. Com-
plainant, at the suggestion of her mistress, applied for
and obtained a summons for the assault.

The defendant, in reply to the charge, said there was
no truth in the girl's story. He had never attempted to
take liberties, nor had he given her money at any time
to induce her to comply with his solicitations. The
fact was, that the girl came to him with a message from
her mistress that she wanted a sovereign.: He had given
the girl the sovereign, and the girl had then gone out
and had stopped away the whole night. Having ascer-
tained that the girl's mistress had not sent to him for
the sovereign, and being very much irritated the next
day when the girl made her appearance and trumped up
a story to his wife, in order to cover her misconduct, he
certainly did push her out of the house.
Mr. MALTBY asked the defendant if he positively de-
nied having ever acted improperly to the girl ?—The
defendant declared he never had touched her, or made
improper proposals to her.
Complainant—You know you have, many and many
a time. When mistress was out the other day, did you
not try to get at me in the bedroom, but you could not
because I had locked the door ? Your worship, he never
could pass me when I lived in the house without pulling
my frock or laying hold of my neck. . I was so disgusted
with his behaviour that I told mistress about it.

Mr. MA.LTBY—You say the defendant gave you money,
and you took it ; for what purpose did he give you this
money ? Complainant—He pretended to pity me at
first. lie said I was a poor girl, without frier.ds, and if
I wanted to buy myself some clothes he would give me
money. He told me he would give me a sovereign any
time I liked, and that he did not care about spending a
hundred pounds to obtain anything he had set his mind
upon. I told my mistress everything he said to me.
The defendant called an errand boy as witness, but no-
thing of any consequence was elicited.
At the suggestion of Mr. Maltby,lthe defendant con-
sented to send for his wife.

The wife, who has much the advantage of the com-
plainant in point of :personal attractions, entered the
Court and was examined. It was quite apparent that
great reluctance on her part existed to state any matter
unfavourable to her husband. She denied that the com-
plainant had taken out the summons at her request. She
admitted, however, that the complainant had told her
about the money offered by the defendant, and the de-
fendant's declaration about spending 1001. to have his
mind. She also admitted that she had told the com-
plainant to take all the money offered to her.
Mr. MALTBY said he was satisfied that the complain-
ant's statement was true, and he should therefore inflict a
fine of 5/. or three months' hard labour.

The defendant immediately paid the money.
A Lieutenant-Colonel, who writes from Tunbridge,
sent IL for a poor distressed needlewoman, named Ed-
wards. 51. was put in the poor-box, at the request of the
members of the Stock Exchange, being part of the money
subscribed for an impostor named Carr, whose case ap-
peared under the head of Thames police. It was stated
that the subscriptions for this woman and her family ex-
ceeded 2201.