The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-19 00:00:00

CITY SHERIFFS' COURT.

DONOIIUE V DRAPER.
In this case the plaintiff, Mr. John Donolaue,green-
grocer, Vere-street, Clare-market, sought to recover
from the defendant, Mr. John Draper, landlord of the
Globe, Charles street, Hatton-garden, the sum of 6/.
for the hire of a van.
Mr. Charnock appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr.
Lush for the defendant.
Mr. CHARNOCK stated that the defendant had a
Derby club at hii house, the members of which were
desirous to go to Epsom on the Derby day. The
defendant, in consequence, engaged a van of the
plaintiff, for which he consented to pay Cl., it being
for the accommodation of ten of the members. On
the day named, the van being at the door, the driver
of it, who was the plaintiff's brother, was told
by the defendant that the plaintiff had agreed
to let the van for twenty persons. There were
eighteen, however, who took their seats, in ad-
dition to whom the defendant put into the van
three barrels of ale and porter, twelve hampers
of provisions, with a large quantity of cigars, soda
water, and bottles of wine. With this load the van
went to Epsom Downs. On its return, at Tooting,
there was a disturbance among the party, and, in a
pugilistic encounter, a person named Bullen received
a black eye. The defendant was so disgusted with
his friends that he left them there, and came to town
in a cart. The defendant now refused to pay the de-
mand upon him, and offered to pay 41. The action
was brought to recover the whole amount.
Mr. Proctor, a coal dealer, said that on the 16th of
May, he was in the defendant's parlour, when the
plaintiff was there. He heard the former say, "Is
your van hired ? If not I will engage it, and give
you 61." Witness understood the plaintiff to allude
to the Derby day, and asked for a deposit. The de-
fendant replied, that he could pay for the van in the
morning, when the van was brought. He also ob-
served, that there would be ten persons besides the
luggage.
By Mr. Lusu—The defendant told him that he had
offered tlae plaintiff 41., which he refused to take.
Daniel Donohoue, the plaintiff's brother, confirmed
the statement of the Learned Counsel, and said that
the luggage, with the passengers weighed above two
tons. He produced the excise ticket for the hire of
the van, which was signed by the defendant.
Other evidence to a similar effect being given,
Mr. LUSH, for the defendant, contended that his
client was not the person who engaged the van. Two
gentlemen, of the names of Silk and Bullen, rendered
themselves responsible, and they agreed with the
plaintiff that twenty persons were to go in the van,
and that they would pay him 61. for the hire of it.
He would prove this, and that the horses in the van
were not sufficiently powerful for the journey; that
one of them jibbed; and that the party were fre-
quently obliged to get out of the van, in order to push
it along the road.—(Laughter.)
Mr. G. Silk, a commercial traveller, said that he
entered into an engagement with the plaintiff for the
hire of his van, for which he was to pay 31., the plain-
tiff consenting to take ten persons of his party. Mr.
Bullen was to provide ten other persons, and to pay
an additional 3/. Witness was to receive the money
from each, which was Cl. for the day. Some brought
their own provisions. Defendant supplied only two
barrels (nine gallons each) of ale anal porter, two
dozen quart bottles of stout, six bottles of wine, two
dozen bottles of ale, some cigars, and a piece of beef
and ham.—(Laughter.) The van had not got further
than Kennington, when one of the horses began to
jib, and some of them had to get out to push the
wheels. Others got out, fearing that the van would
be upset.—(Laughter.) This happened, at least
twenty times, an on some occasions they all got out.
They arrived at the course about half-past one o'clock.
They left again about half-past five o'clock, and it
was near eleven o'clock before they got to Tooting.
There were some would not go any further, and they
hired a cab, while others walked to town. On a part
of the road the driver got out to fight, and that de-
tained them half an hour. It cost witness 12s. for
the hire of a cab to town.
By Mr. Lusx--There were only two of the party
the worse for liquor. He had never been at Epsom
before, and would never go again.
Mr. Bullen corroborated the last evidence, and said
that the cause of his dispute was, that his hat was
knocked down over his eyes. He resented the af-
front, when he received a black eye.
Mr. Penny, one of the party, stated that he agreed
to pay Mr. Silk. He went out for a day's pleasure,
and it was the hardest day's work he ever had in his
life.—(Laughter.) Sometimes, when the party was
pushing behind and the driver whipping the horses,
they would start off into a gallop, when they all had
to run, and it was with the greatest difficulty that
they could get up to the van.—(Laughter.)
Some other witnesses being examined,
Mr. CHARNOCK replied, and observed that the sig-
nature to the ticket was in the handwriting of the de-
fendant, and was a proof of his responsibility.
The Learned COMMISSIONER summed up, when the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Cl.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
GUILDHALL.

Richard Palmer, a young man residing at Ber-
mondsey, was charged with pilfering silver spoons
from two taverns.

Charles Woods, waiter 'at the Three Cups Tavern,
Aldersgate-street, stated, that the prisoner was served
by him with a tumber and tea-spoon, containing six-
penny-worth of gin and water, in the coffee-room, by
his order. He (witness) suspected him, and continued
to watch him, but was unfortunately called away. On
his return, in three minutes, he found Palmer had
left, having thrown the newspaper over the glass to
conceal that he had taken the silver spoon. He ran
into Aldersgate-street, informing the police of it, de-
scribing the particular kind of chocolate-coloured
trowsers he wore. No other person had been in the
room at the time to steal the spoon. About twenty
minutes after he was taken by a City policeman,
owing to the description given. He denied having
been at all at the Three Cups, and on being con-
fronted with Woods, the waiter, still persisted in this
statement, though he was immediately recognised by
the latter. A metal spoon, made of British plate, was
found in his waistcoat pocket, which, he said, he had
picked up. Five duplicates, relating to two shirts
and other wearing articles, were found on him, toge-
ther with three pocket handkerchiefs.
William Freeman, waiter at the New Inn, Old
Bailey, remembered the prisoner as having remained
about an hour in the room with some hot gin and
water he had ordered. After depositing a tray in a
cupboard in the room, he was absent for a few minutes,
and on his return found Palmer had decamped, taking
with him five silver salt-spoons. Witness had singled
the prisoner out from among a number of prisoners in
the Compter, on being taken there for that purpose.
A. silver cruet, worth 3/. 10s., had been stolen by
onother man at the same time.

The prison; offered no defence, and was remanded,
under expectation that other charges will appear
against him.

MARYLEBOIVE.
Shortly before the meeting of the Court, a poor
Italian, who gave his name Louis Morangi, was
brought up in custody and placed at the bar, charged,
at the instance of Viscount Frankfort, No. 17, South-
wick-crescent, Hyde Park-square, with having re-
fused to desist from playing his organ when required
to do so. It will be remembered that his Lordship
has for years past evinced a most decided antipathy to
street music, particularly that of the organ-ic descrip-
tion, and that, upon several occasions when offending
musicians have been placed at the bar of justice to
answer for their misdeeds in disturbing the said ec-

centric nobleman, Mr. Wooller has attended to con-
duct the cases; his professional services were, how..
ever, now dispensed with.
tf,liaries Davis, the butler, gave evidence to the
effect that on the same afternoon, about three o'clock,
the prisoner was playing hii; organ for some time
within a few doors of Lord Frankfort's residence,
and by order of his Lordship witness went out and
desired him to move away. He continued to play
on, and presently stationed himself dirsctly in front
of his Lordship's house, at which spot he was ulti-
mately given into the custody of police-constable
Wilkins.

Mr. RAWLINSON here read a section applicable to
the offence, in the 57th clause of the Police Act,
which runs thus :—" And be it enacted, that it shall
be lawful for any housekeeper within the metropolitan
police districts, personally, or by his servant, or by
any police constable,to require any street musician to de-
part from the neighbourhood of the house of such house-
holder on account of the illness of any inmate of such
house, or for other reasonable cause ; and every person
who shall sound or play upon any musical instrument
in any thoroughfare near any house, after being so
required to depart, shall be liable to a penalty of not
more than 405."

Mr. RAWLI&SON (to Davis)—ls there any illness
in his Lordship's house ? Davis—There is not, Sir.
Mr. RAWLINSON—Then, what "reasonable cause"
do you assign for having ordered the prisoner away ?
Davis—Only that Lord Frankfort does not like mu-
sic, Sir,

Mr. hAWLINSON—These organ-players know that
he don't like it, and they go there on purpose to an-
noy him, I believe. Isn't that so? Davis—lt is.
Sir, there can be no doubt of it.
Mr. RawurisoN—Then it's very scandalous con-
duct.

The prisoner, in answer to the charge, stated in
Italian, that he was not aware of his having done any-
thing wrong, and that he was merely playing in the
street as usual for his livelihood, when he was laid
hold of by the constable.—He was discharged.
QUEEN-SQUARE. _ _

As the magistrate was about retiring, a respectable-
looking elderly female applied to Mr. Burrell for his
assistance under the following circumstances :—Ap-
plicant, who stated her name to be Elizabeth Bird,
said that between 21 and 22 years ago, she was de-
livered of a male child at No, 9, John-street, Marl-
borough-road, Chelsea. When the infant was about
a month old, a very handsomely-dressed lady visited
her at her residence, and having much admired the
child, asked her if she was inclined to part with it.
Applicant replied that she was not ; but on the lady
stating that she would adopt it as her own, and that
it would become the heir to very large property, she
said she would consider of it, and speak to her hus-
band on the subject. The lady subsequently visited
them three or four times, and as applicant still ob-
jected to be separated from the infant, the lady said
that she should be admitted into her service, and there
remain with her offspring, undertaking never to di-
vulge to any person that it was her child. She at
length consented to this arrangement, on the lady
promising that she would be a friend to her and her
other children as long as she lived. She then took
the child with the understanding that she would im-
mediately provide a wet nurse for it, and come on the
following day to conclude the arrangement. From
that period to the present day she had never seen
either the lady or her child, although year after year
she had made every effort to trace them out, and
had gone before the magistrates at Chelsea to ascertain
if they could in any way assist her. From inquiries
she had made of late, she had every reason to believe
it was a Mrs. Pelham. She had been that day to the
workhouse at Chelsea, and had recognised Mrs. Pel-
ham as the lady who took her child. She had a
youth with her of one or two and twenty years of
age, but having parted with her child at a month old,
she could not attempt to say whether that young man
was her son.;
Mr. Edwards, the chief clerk, explained to the Ma-
gistrate that Mrs. Pelham was the person who had
been charged about three months ago at that Court,
with great cruelty to a lunatic son, the issue of her
connexion with Sir Brent Spencer. He had been
found confined in a most filthy state, it would be re-
membered, at Chelsea.
Mr. BURRELL asked if this was the child of which
the female spake ?—Mr. Edwards replied no ; it was
the one who had been charged with her, and who went
by the name of Wilson Pelham.
Tunstall, a police-constable of the B division, ob-
served that there was a great likeness between the ap-
licant and Wilson Pelhatn,*),z
Mr. BURRELL mild it*Oa-long period of time to
speak to a person's:. idetlay.—Aoplicant said that if
the written account she had given in to Mr. Rider,
the Chairman of the ricittrd• of Guardian, was referred
to, it would be found to exactly correspond with Mrs.
Pelham's appearance. She recognised her the mo-
ment she saw her. Mrs. Pelham was a very hand-
some woman at the time she had the child from her.

Mr. BURRELL remarked that she still retained the
traces of great beauty. What could her object be in
taking the child ?—Mr. Edwards observed that it was
no doubt to palm it upon some gentleman as his off.
spring. Mr. Rider, the Chairman of the Board of
Guardians, who had taken a very active part in this
prosecution, had stated-that it had been ascertained
that the female, Mrs. Pelham, had an allowance of
1001. per annum from some gentleman in Edinburgh.
Mr. BURRELL asked if there was any other person
who had seen the lady at the time she took the child ?
Appellant replied, her husband, who was still alive.
Mr. Edwards observed, that the applicant had
parted with the child with her own consent.
Mr. BURRELL expressed his opinion that it was a
felony notwithstanding. Her intention was to carry
off the child at the time she made these alluring pro-
mises. She had evidently intended the fraud from
the moment. Her story of making it the heir to
large property, and of permitting the mother to re-
side with it, were all ingredients of that fraud.
Mr. Edwards inquired what course the magistrate
intended to adopt ?
Mr. BURRELL said he should take time to consider.
He then turned to two or three cases in the law books
which appeared to confirm his view, and said that he
should examine the statute law prior to the 9th of
George IV. on the subject.