The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-12 00:00:00

HOBBS V. HARVEY.

Mr. KERSCHNER was instructed to show cause against a rule
which had been obtained by Mr. Peacock, calling upon the plaintiff
to give security for costs. He had an objection to make to the
copy of the rule which was drawn up on reading the affidavit of
Alexander Dobie, calling upon the defendant to show cause.
Mr. PEACOCK did not then know on whose behalf his friend ap-
peared. Was it for the plaintiff or defendart ?
Mr. KERSCHNER said he appeared for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—It is so obvious a mistake—What is
your cause?
Mr. KERSCHNER said he had two affidavits going to the fact
whether the plaintiff was resident in England. It was a qui tam
action, brought to recover penalties for advertising foreign lotteries,
and it appeared that the press of this country, as well as Scotland,
had fallen heavily into a liability to penalties. He had the aft.
davit of James Macaire, who was the attorney and agent for Hobbs,
in several suits, who stated that it was not necessary for the plaintiff
to reside in Scotland while an action was pending, but the
course and practice was to give his mandatory, and the deponent
had received instructions from the mandatory appointed by the
plaintiff, and the defendant stated that the plaintiff was not now
resident in Scotland, but was permanently resident in England,
and that his belief was that the plaintiff intended to continue
to reside in England. Then lie had the affidavit of Hobbs,
himself, who stated that he left Scotland last September for Lon-
don, intending to return to Scotland as soon as he had arranged
his ptivate affairs—that he was detained there a considerable time,
and he then determined to endeavour to find employment in Eng-
land, and he returned to Scotland on the 28th of February to
settle his affairs, with an intention of returning to England ; that
lie did return in March last, and had lived in several houses in the
parish of Lambeth, where he intended to continue to reside.
_

. .
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Mr. Peacock, are you not answered ?
Mr. PEACOCK—No, my Lord, I think not.
Mr. KERSCHNER thought the affidavit showed all that was re-
quisite—that the plaintiff continued to reside in England. There
was another motion—this was a qui tam action, and the Courts had
generally rather supported the plaintiffs, and had not called upon
them to give security for costs. There was a case in 2 Dow. 259,
where Mr. Baron Bayley had said, the Court would not compel a
plaintiff in a qui tam action to give security though he was sworn
to be a pauper. His Lordship would hardly favour an application
of this kind where injustice might be done. The Acts of the Le-
gislature could only be carried out by this class of men—they must
be considered as public servants. .

Mr. Justice COLIRIDGE-I don't consider them as my servants.

Mr. PEACOCK said—His friend had stated that the press had
fallen heavily into penalties, and the plaintiff was seeking to reap a
rich harvest in consequence of its having done so. The affidavit
stated what the plaintiff had done in Scotland subsequently to the
Ist of March. This was a proceeding against the Globe newspaper
for penalties amounting to upwards of 3,0001. The plaintiff had
brought seven or eight similar actions, and also others in Scotland
Mr. Smith, the attorney for a defendant, of the Caledonian Mer-
cury, in Scotland, applied to the judge there to compel the plaintiff
to give security for costs in that action, on the ground that he was
residing out of the kingdom of Scotland, and was then domiciled in
England ; that was opposed on the ground that the plaintiff was
domiciled in Scotland. It was then declared in writing by the
plaintiff's counsel, according to the practice in Scotland, that the
plaintiff had left England and was then living in Scotland, where
he intended to continue to reside. If, therefore, the declaration
was true, the present affidavit of the plaintiff was false.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE wished to know what the answer in
Scotland was ?

Mr. PEACOCK then again read the affidavits of Macaire and the
plaintiff, declaring that the plaintiff' had appointed a mandatory,
and had left Scotland, and was now resident, and intended to
continue to reside, in England. The plaintiff did not swear
that he was proceeding in his action against the Caledonian Mcr.
curt' by his mandatory, nor did he state that he was permanently
domiciled in England.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE-1 think the answer will not do it is
not merely comparing one affidavit with the other, but the plain.
tiff's attention was distinctly pointed to dates by the defendant's
affidavit, but he had not fixed any.—Rule absolute.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Edward N. Durup, a young man, who had been clerk to
a merchant, appeared yesterday against his mother, the widow
of Wm. Durup, who was stated to have been many years ago
secretary to the Right Hon. G. orge Canning.
Mrs. Durrup was accused on the previous evening, by her
son, of having robbed him of his watch, a gold repeater, of con.
siderable value, but Inspector M'Lean, after having inquired
into the circumstances, refused to take such a charge, and ad-
' vised the parties to attend before the Lord Mayor, and submit
the case to his Lordship's decision. Mrs. Durup was accompa •
nied by a respectable pawnbroker, in whose care she had depo-
sited a quantity of her property for security against domestic

plunder. . .
The LORD MAYOR (to the complainant. )—Well, sir, with
what do you charge your mother ?
Complainant—l do not charge her with anything ; but lam
desirous that she should show cause why she detains a gold re-
peater watch, which my father gave to me upon his death-bed.
I was advised to bring the matter before your Lordship, and to
take your decision.
The LORD MAYOR—Do you make any charge ? Com-
plainant—No, my Lord, that is impossible ; the watch has
never been stolen, but it is detained by my mother, and I wish
to know for what reason.
The LORD MAYOR—What proof have you that she detained
your property ? Complainant—l am sat►sfed from her own
statement, and the statement of Mr. Barker, the pawnbroker,

that she detained it.
Mrs. Durup—The watch was his father's, my Lord. He is
our only son, and his father left me all he was possessed of in
the world.
The LORD MAY OR—Has the father left a will ? Mrs.
Durup—Certainly he has, my Lord, and in it he has left me
the whole of his property. The treatment I receive from my
son is dreadful.
The Loan NlAvost—Be so good as to change places with
him.
Here the mother was sworn, and the son became the accused.
Mr. Durup then reluctantly gave testimony as to the
violent conduct of her son towards her, and his threats to do
her some desperate injury. He had, she said, claimed the
watch as his, and pawned it without her permission or know-
ledge, and he afterwards pushed her about and threatened her
with all sorts of ill-treatment.
The LORD MAYoa—Do you swear that you consider your-
self in danger in consequence of his threats ?
Mrs. Dunlop—l understand what your Lordship means by
putting that question to me ; but I expect to leave England
in a few days, for the Continent, where I expect to be pro-
tected by my relations. I wish to get away in peace.
The Loan MAYost—l shall, fur your sake, bind him over
to keep the peace towards you.
The young man then solemnly assured his Lordship that he
would not beat, or otherwise ill-treat his mother, and the Lord
Mayor was, at the expostulation of the mother, satisfied with
the recognizances of the son.
A young man, named Bradley, was committed for trial upon
several charges of embezzlement, upon the prosecution of Mr.
Jones, to whom he had been acting in the capacity of com-
mission clerk. •
Thomas Johnson was charged by Mr. Silvano Francisco
Luis l'erer, a merchant, with having attempted to steal a pin

from the front of his shirt.
The prosecutor stated that as he was landing from a steam-
vessel at Fresh 'Wharf, the prisoner, who had been a passenger,
and had kept dodging about him, made a grab at his pin,
amidst the confusion caused amongst the crowd on going
ashore, but was seized by hint and secured.
The prisoner was committed to Bridewell for three months.
Two well-dressed females, named Ann Burke and Eliza
Thomas, were charged with having committed an aggravated
offence of uttering counterfeit coin.
It appeared that the prisoners walked into the Queen's Head
public-house, in Tower-street, and called for a quartern of gin,
for which Burke paid with a new shilling. The waiter took
up the shilling, put it into the till, and gave the change to the
woman, who afterwards called for another quartern of gin, and
put down another new shilling. The waiter took up the shil-
ling, bent it, said it was bad, and threw it upon the counter,
and then, upon examining the first shilling, ascertained that
was a counterfeit.
Burke then said that a young man, who stood near her at
the bar, had paid for the first quartern, and Thomas stepped
behind the young man, and contrived to slip a small paper par-
cel into his pocket at the moment a policeman was entering to
take the prisoners into custody.
John Aledhurst, a gardener, stated that he was in Tower-
street, and saw the prisoners, who were quite strangers to him.
He had some shrimps in his hand, and Thomas having asked
him for a few, he gave her some. Thomas then beckoned to
Burke, who was on the other side of the road, and witness went
into the public-house, the prisoners following him. The wit-
ness then confirmed the statement made by the waiter as to
the payment given for th• gin, and the conduct of Thomas in
slipping something into his pocket, and saying that he had put
down the first shilling.
William Dolby, a policeman, stated that when he went into
the public house be distinctly saw Thomas go behind the
witness, and drop a parcel, which was found to contain nine
counterfeit shillings, into the young man's pocket.
The Loan slAvoa said the case was a most atrocious one,
and committed the prisoners for uttering and being in possession
of counterfeit coin.

LAMBETH.
Yesterday Miss Mary Ann Salisbury, alias Miss Lucy
Spencer,
who,
it will be recollected, gave such a romantic
account of her seduetion
,andwshpcd a
olaha:lbet thee barnchar beforegedwit i‘r.
with at-
t: tompting to commit suicide, was
Norton for final examination under various charges of felony.
The prisoner when put in the felons dock, did not exhibit any
of those theatrical airs which she had assumed at her last ex-
amination. On the contrary, during her presence at the bar,
she continued to shed tears in abundance, and endeavoured, as
well as she could, to conceal her face from the observation of
the numerous persons who had thronged the Court during the
investigation.
When the prisoner was first brought before Mr. Norton, on
a charge of attempting to commit suicide, her statement about
her being the daughter of a Dissenting clergyman at Bath, and
being seduced and robbed, was so plausible, as not only to mis-
lead every person in Court, but the magistrate himself, and
with that humanity and kindness for which he has been always
distinguished, Mr. Norton directed English, one of the sum-
moning officers, to take care of her, until an answer could be
received from her father, and also requested the chief clerk to
write to the latter. This was done, and in reply to the letter
sent the following was received:—
" Guildhall, Bath, 7th June, 1845.
" Sir,—ln answer to your letter of the sth ir,st., 1 have to
inform you that the young woman who gave her name Mary
Ann Salisbury is the daughter of Salisbury, a poor roan,
residing at No. 4, Trim-bridge, in this city, and a shoemaker.
She left her home about two months ago, and her address,
known here, is ' Post-office, London.' Her age is 19
Her statement as to Alfred Bartram is a falsehood,ir
in her
d
pereon being known here. She is considered not right
mind. Her statement as to the gold watch an year::
jewellery is

not true, her friends are too poor to fetch her home, but Are
anxiously waiting her return
" I am. Sir, your obedient servant,
" WILLIAM HALL, Chief Officer.

" To the Chief Clerk, Lambeth Court."
A City constable attended and informed Mr. Norton thsat_
the prisoner had been bet', re the Lord Mayor on a charge ut
attempting to commit suicide at London.bridge, when she
made a long and rambling statement atout her respectability,
her being seduced, but it differed in many essentials from
that which she had made at this Court. It also appeared that
she had gone to the Southwark Court for the purpose of getting
relief, but having on her hand at the time two valuable rirgs.
she was not deemed a person in absolute want, and no assis—
tance was afforded her.
Mr. NORTON alto produced a letter
,which he had received
from the Rev. L. Cappel, minister of St. George's German
Lutheran Chapel, in Great Alie-street, Goodman's-fields,
stating that on the 2Sth of last month the prisoner called
upon him with the view, no doubt, of getting Feenniary as-
sistance under grossly false pretences. She then gave her
name as Lucy Spence, ; said she was the daughter of g clergy-
man, and sister to the Rev. Mr. Spencer at Bath, and said
a foreign lady, Mrs. Francis, had sent her to him (the Rev.
Mr. Cappel). She then in the most artful manner, and ap:*"
rently deeply affected, told the same story that she had re,-
pealed to the magistrate, with some slight variations, east
expressed herself very anxious to return to Bath, but wan
without the means of doing so, as her lover had robbed her of
everything, and then endeavoured to induce her to commit
suicide. Something in her manner had induced the Rev.
Gentleman to doubt her story, but at the same time he offered
to assist her, provided she allowed him to accompany her to
Mrs. Francis, the lady who, as she stated, had recommended
her to him. This, however, was evidently inconvenient. She
made some evasive excuses and left the house. The Rev. Gen-
tleman in his note describes the prisoner to be one of the most
a tful ii-ni.o,tors he had ever met with, and most likely to suc-
c.-ed on account of the details which she could give to her
stories.

The firs. case of felony taken against her was that of a Mrs.
Farthing, in Ashley-crescent, City-road, and, from the evidence
adduced, it appeared that the prisoner had entered her service
as servant of all-work on the 14th of April last. She then
represented that she had just come from Bath, where she had
lived with a lady named Salisbury for nearly four years, and
gave her own name as Lucy Spencer. Witness wrote to Bath
to Mrs. Salisbury for her character, and, singular to say, she
received an answer by return of post, giving the prisoner the
highest character; but this letter, witness was now con-
vinced was in the prisoner's own handwriting. After nine
days witness discharged the prisoner, finding her neither
able nor willing to do her work, and a great deal too romantic
in her manaers and expressions. After she was gone witness
missed a great variety of property, and that now produce] by
English. the officer•, was part of it.
English, one of the summoning officers of the Court, de-
posed that the prisoner was placed under his care until proper
inquiries were made about her. She told him her name was
Salisbury, and that she was the daughter of a Dissenting Mi-
nister at Bath—that her father had a country house at Bath,,
and had a farm also, which she superintended. She said no-
thing whatever of having been in service at Bath ; and ow
searching her box at her lodgings he found the property iden-
tified by the last witness, and some duplicates relating to other
property. . . .

This completed the first charge.
The second charge was that of Miss Mary Bartram, assistant
to Mrs. Ford, a di es;maker in tt'e Blackfriars-road, who de-
posed that on the 12'h of May last the prisoner entered the
service of Mrs. Ford, when she gave the name of Lucy Spen-
cer, and, after eight days, had been discharged. A day or
two after she was gone witness lost a cloak, and other articles
had been missed, of the stealing of which the prisoner had
been suspected. A lace shawl had been missing, and for some
considerable time the workpeeple in the house had laboured
under the most unpleasant suspicions, as the property had dis-
appeared in a very misterious manner ; but the mystery s.•as
now cleared up, as the shawl was found in the prisoner's box,
with several other articles. Witness further stated, that she
had frequently heard the prisoner talk of having a sweetheart
in Bath, who had died three years ago, and say she shouts'
never have another.

The witness further identified the cloak produced by a pawn-
broker as hers ; and English, the officer, deposed to having
found the duplicate relating to the cloak, which was pledged
for 65., in the box of the prisoner.
This completed the second charge.
The third charge was that of stealing three shawls, a piece of
silk of twelve yards, five yards of cloth, a white petticoat, and
other articles, the property of Mary Ann C.ark. In this case
it appeared the prisoner went to lodge in the same house with
the prosecutriz in Fell-street, Wood-street, Cheapside, on the
10th of May last, and only stayed there two days, and when
she was gone the property was missing.
A shopman to Mr. Demster, a pawnbroker in Blackfriars-
road, produced the property, which had been pledged on the
12th of May, in the same name and by a person giving the same
address as the person who pledged the cloak.
The prisoner, who, in a low tone of voice pleaded guilty to
the whole of the charges, was fully committed for trial on each,
and was then removed from the bar.
THAMES POLICE.

The whole day at this Court was consumed in hearing a series
of cases the evidence to which is utterly unfit for publication,
so unparalleled was the revolting infamy it disclosed. In one
of the police-sheets from the Denmark-street station-house, St.
George's-in-the• East, H division, were charges by which
Jacob Gill, :38 years of age, a tailor, residing at No. 6, William.
street, Gloucester-street, St. George's-in-the-East, and Hart-
ley Archer, both professing to belong to the Society of Friends
or Quakers, and also to have taken the teetotal pledge ; Thomas
Young, a journeyman brewer; and two Jew boys, named
Henry and John Hart, cigar makers, who are cousins, and each
about 16 years old, the former residing at No. 8, New-street,
Mite-end Old-town, and the latter at 16, King-street, St.
George's-in-the-East, were accused of an abominable crime..
On the previous day Edward Hyatt, a tailor, but at present
carrying on business as a baker, at 74, Long-alley, Worship-
street, made a communication to Inspector Donegan, who in-
stantly sent Sergeant O'Brien,s H, to make the necessary in•
quiries, and the result of an active investigation was, that fise
whole of the prisoners were in custody on the above charge be,
fore ten o'clock the same night. Mr. Pelham defended the*
two Quakers, Gill and Archer ; Mr. Lewis appeared for the
Jew lads, and Young was undefended. It appeared that the
boy Hyatt went on trial to Gill as an assistant in the tailoring
business, on Thursday last, and from his account of the proceed-
ings these suspicions were excited against Gill. The evidence
of this boy, who fainted away several times whilst giving his
testimony, was absolutely hideous. The evidence against Hart-
ley Archer was equally conclusive.
At the instance of Mr. Lewis, the case of the two Jew lads
Hart, was taken first, and they were acquitted and discharged.
Young was locked up in default cif bail for the misdemeanour,
and, on committing the prisoners Gill and Archer oa the ca-
pital charge,
Mr. BRODF.RIr said charges of so shocking a nature
were very easily made, and, at the same time, very difficult
to be disproved. The evidence in the present case de—
pended on the testimony of a lad, who gave it under ap-
parently great mental suffering, as was obvious to all pre-
sent, and yet he went through the horrible details, which
it was his (the worthy magistrate's) most painful duty to
hear, with great clearness and precision. It would be for a
jury to say what credit they would attach to the lad's evi-
dence; but, whatever might be the result, he could only say
that the disgusting details of abominable profligacy, exposed
in the odious narrative which had occupied the Court during
that day, exceeded in its revolting grossness all that came
under his observation during the twenty years in which he had
sat upon the bench. Gill he would commit as principal on one
charge, and accessory to another. Archer should be also com-
mitted as a principal, and it would be the province of a jury to
say whether they were or were not guilty of the crimes alleged
against them.