The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-20 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.

THOMSON V. SMALL.
This was an action in trover in which the plaintiffs,
Messrs. Thomson and Co., are wholesale tin and
sheet-lead dealers, and the defendant is master of the
ship Bucephalus.
On the 20th July, 1843, the plaintiffs sold to a
person of the name of Galbraith goods to the amount
of 3991. 4s .; these goods were to be shipped on board
the Bucephalus, bound for Sidney, and to be paid
for before the ship started from London. On the
goods being shipped, the plaintiffs received a receipt
from defendant. After that, having heard that Mr.
Galbraith was insolvent, the plaintiffs demand the
return of the goods. Subsequently they received
from Galbraith a paper authorising them to remove
the goods from the ship, and defendant was served
with a notice signed by Galbraith, requiring him to
give the goods up to plaintiff, which, however, he re •
fused to do until the whole amount of the freight to
Sidney should be paid. Accordingly he took the
goods to Sidney.
The defendant pleaded the lien for freight. To this
it is demurred that the master or owners had no claim
for freight, inasmuch as Galbraith had chartered the
vessel for 1,6001., and possession of her had, by the
charter party, passed for the time to him.
Mr. Sergeant CrIANNELL, in support of the de-
murrer, contended that the instruction of the char-
terers to the master ought to have been imperative
on him to return the goods, whose property in them
had not determined - whilst they held in their posses-
sion the master's receipt for them as theirs, and in
their name.

Mr. Sergeant SMEA, against the demurrer, argued
that when the captain was also owner (as in this
case), the possession did not pass to the char-
terers, under any circumstances, and it had
moreover been ruled, that, for the purpose
of lien, the possession did not pass from the owner
so long as their captain and crew remained on board.
In such cases the charterers had only the temporary
use of the ship, for the purpose of freight. Where
the charterers stipulated to have the appointment of
the master, it had been decided that they had com-
plete possession, and the owners had no lien. But, in
the present instance, the owner remained in posses-
sion, continuing to command his ship, and it was part
of the contract that he should find sailors, with food
and wages. The Learned Sergeant submitted that
this charter party was merely a contract for the freight
of goods, and did not give such a possession as would
constitute the charterers owners pro hac vice. It had
been held, indeed, that where a bill had been taken
for freight the lien would not attach until after the
bill should have been due and dishonoured. In this
case the contract was for payment in two months after
the landing of the goods in Sidney ; and it was, upon
that ground, assumed for the plaintiffs that lien did
not attach, and that Galbraith had control and authority
over the ship and cargo at the time when he ordered the
captain to return the goods In question, But he
(Mr. Sergeant Shea) contended that as far as the con,
tract to pay at a certain time was similar to a bill or
note, the contract was virtually like a dishonoured
bill when the defendant set up his lien ; for the
charterer had been arrested on a charge of felony,
and had declared himself insolvent, The Learned

Sergeant was proceeding to cite cases in favor of this
view, when—
Mr. Justice MAurx, observed—l suppose the last
case is the one on which the police magiArate laid
down that a coffee-house keeper had a right to detain
his guest until the bill was paid ?
Mr. Sergeant SHEA. said—No; the case his Lord-
ship referred to was that of Dando, the oyster eater,
which stood on its own authority.—(A laugh.) That
was regarded as a case of " animus errandi et non
revertendi."—(A laugh.) The Learned Sergeant
having continued his argument to a great length,
Mr. Sergeant CriANNELL replied.
Their Lordships took time to consider judgment.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir C. F. WILLIAms.)
IN RE J. A. GILES, LL.D.
The insolvent, a gentleman well known in the
literary worll, and formerly head master of the
London School, appeared this day before Sir C.
Williams, on his final examination.
He was opposed by Mr. Crew, for a builder named
Mann, a creditor to the amount of 1,5001., and by a
gentleman for another creditor. The examination
lasted for above three hours, when
Sir C. WiLuAms gave judgment. He thought the
insolvent fully entitled to the benefit of the Act, for
it did not appear to him (Sir C. Williams) that, at
the period of contracting the debts, he was not in
a condition to pay them. He was then in
receipt of 1,0001. a year, as head master of the
London School. His name was distinguished as a
scholar, and therefore his literary exertions might be
calculated upon as an additional security. He was
afterwards from ill health obliged, it was true, to
resign that situation, and his literary efforts did not
meet the success he had contemplated. Still that was
an error in judgment, and not of the heart. There
was no appearance of fraud, however much he might
be imprudent; and, therefore, again he said that the
insolvent was entitled to the benefit of the Act.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS DAY.)
The Court sat to-day for the purpose of disposing
of the remaining case of felony, which stood over
from yesterday.
Thomas Cunningham, aged 17 years, and John
Byrne, aged 14, were placed at the bar upon an in-
dictment charging them with stealing a pocket hand-
kerchief, value 55., the property of Christopher Brown.
It appeared by the evidence, which was very length-
ened, that the elder lad, who had all the appearance of
a hardened thief, stole the article named in the indict-
ment from the prosecutor's pocket, and handed it to
the younger prisoner, whom he induced to go with
it to a well-known " fence," or receiver of stolen
goods, where it was sold, and the elder lad kept the
produce.

The police and officers of the prison stated to the
Bench that Cunningham was a notorious thief, and
had been several times before convicted.
The ASSISTANT-JUDGE said he trusted what he
was now about to say would become well known. It
was idle to expect anything like a diminution of crime
while that worst and most dangerous of all classes,
the receivers of stolen goods, escaped with compara-
tive impunity. The transportation of some few: of
them for fourteen years would do more good than the
punishment of dozens of juvenile offenders, and most
certainly, in all cases which came before him, he
should inflict this punishment upon receivers when it
was possible. He should, in the present instance,
sentence Cunningham to ten years' transportation ;
and, as Byrne was evidently his dupe, he should only
sentence him to one month's imprisonment.

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
John Smith, No. 5, Charles-street, Drury-lane,
was charged with stealing a bedstead from the door
of Mr. W. J. Hall, broker, No. 29, Great St. An-
drew-street, Seven-dials.

, .
The prisoner did not deny the offence. He had
tried to get work and could not—he was almost
starved to death and covered with rags, and he took
the bedsteads with a double intent. The intent was
to sell it and get food, if he got away with it clear,
and if he was taken in the act he knew he should get
a shelter in prison, and food, which he could not get
outside.

Mr. JARDINE said it was lamentable to see a man
in such destitution and distress, but still his duty as
a magistrate forced him to decide on committing him
for trial.
The prisoner left the bar apparently quite delighted
at being committed.