The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-03 00:00:00

TAYLOR V. CLIMSAR.

The arguments on this writ of error, from the Court of
Exchequer, occupied their Lordships the whole morning.
The facts of the case are of no interest except to the parties
concerned.

COURT OF CHANCERY, May 2.
ABSENCE OF COUNSEL.

On the LORD CHANCELLOR taking his seat this morning,
very few counsel were in court, and, with the excep-
tion of Mr. Wakefield, not one Queen's Counsel was in
attendance. The list of motions was called over, but none
could be proceeded with for some time, in consequence
of the absence of Counsel. His Lordship said that in fu-
ture he would strike out the cases in the paper in which
CounSel were not in attendance. Parties were put to great
expense coming there from time to time, in consequence of
the absence of Counsel. In his Lordship's opinion Counsel
ought not to take briefs in Courts if they could not attend to
them in proper time. In . fature he would most certainly
adopt strictly the rule of striking motions out of the paper
where Learned Counsel *ere instructed and did not appear.
He thought the adoption of such a course only right and just
to the suitors. After this several Queen's. Counsel came into
Court, and the cases in the paper were proceeded with.

DI TILE CASE OF SUISSE.

This case came before the Court upon the motion to dis-
charge an order for an injunction, and another order made:
by the Master of the Rolls upon Mr. Suisse giving security
to repay a sum of 1,5001. -It will be in the recollection of
our readers, that the representatives of the late Marquis of
Hertford filed a bill against Mr. Suisse, for the purpose
of obtaining an injunction against him, restraining. him
from transferring a sum of 3,000 L, standing in his name in the
Three per Cent. Consols, on the ground that that stock had been
purchased with the money of the late Marquis of Hertford,
to whom Suisse was valet. The injunction was granted; but
upon application to his Lordship, he reversed his order so far
as to allow Suisse to take out 1,5001., but continued the in-
junction with'respect to the other 1.5001., and the object of the
present application was to have that 1,590/. paid to Suisse,
upon his giving security to return it, if on the final hearing
of the cause, the Court should be against him.
Mr. ScriomsEßG, on the part of the repre;entatives of the
late Marquis of Hertford, had no objection to the order asked,
provided Mr. Suisse also gave security for cost;.
After some considerable argument, . .

The Loan CHANCELLOR ordered Mr. Suisse to give security
for the return of the 1,5001-., if it became necessary, and also
for the costs and interest.

VICTOR V. DEVEREUX.

The arguments in this motion, which was an appeal from
the Master of the Rolls on a point of practice, occupied the
Court the remainder of the morning.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT May 2.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
His HONOUR on taking his seat intimated that it was not
his intention to sit after Wednesday next, the last day of
Easter. term, until the first day of Trinity term.

SCOTT v. EASCALL.

Mr. STUART applied in this suit that it might be removed
from the office of Master Wingfield, wild was exceedingly in-
disposed, to that of Master Lynch. The ground on which
the Learned Counsel made the application was, that the case
was an exceedingly heavy one, and that dispatch was neces-
sary for the ends of justice. The Learned Counsel, in order to
show the heavy nature of the case, stated that the statement of
facts &ontained no less than 10,000 folios, and but a small
part of the interrogatories, upwards 1,300.
The COURT made the order for the removal of the cause.—
His Honour then proceeded with the hearing of motions.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 2.
(Sittings in Banco.)

CUSTOM FRAUD 3 IN LIVERPOOL.-TFIE QUEEN V. WILLIAM

AND BROCKLEHURST.

The defendants in this case were Liverpool merchants, who
had been convicted at the last Liverpool Assizes of a conspi-
racy to defraud the revenue of certain Customs duties, by
taking certain quantities of coffee out of bond without pay-
ing the duty. The coffee, it appeared, was the property of
Williams, who endeavoured ineffectually to induce the Ous-
tom-house officer to connive at the transaction. The officer,
however, had done his duty, and given such information as
led to the conviction of the parties.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL this morning prayed judgment
upon the defendants, who were on the floor of the Court.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY addressed the Court in mitigation
on behalf of the defendant Brocklehurst.

The defendant Williams addressed the Court in person, and
denied that he had intended to defraud the revenue, as he had
taken out the coffee with the intention of paying the duty
afterwards. His account of the transaction was, that he had
mentioned the circumstance to the officer, who said, " It is
all right, von can take out the coffee, as you pay your duties
quarterly."
Mr. Justice ParrEsox, in passing sentence on the de-
fendants, observed, with regard to the defence now set up by
Williams, the Court could not take that into consideration.
No attempt had been made to show that such was the case
at the trial, or if it had been, the jury had not been satisfied,
or they would not have found the defendants guilty. This
was a very serious case. In various cases, in Liverpool and
elsewhere, temptations had been held out by persons in the
situation of the defendants to officers, to induce them to be-
tray the trust reposed in them by the Crown and the public.
Now it was necessary to make a severe example. The Court
could see no difference in the relative guilt of the parties.
They had been found guilty of conspiring to defraud the re-
venue, and the different parts taken by each in carrying out
that conspiracy made no difference in their guilt.
It appeared that Williams had been already nn-
prisoned for seven months, while Brocklehurst had
only been imprisoned for one month, having been out on bail
since the month of October. The Court took this fact into
its consideration in awarding the punishment to each. The
sentence of the Court was that Thomas Williams should be
imprisoned in her Majesty's gaol at Kirkdale, in Lancashire,
for six calendar months, and that Brocklehurst should be
imprisoned in the same gaol for twelve calendar months, and
that in the mean time they should be committed to the cus-
tody of the keepers of the Queen's Prison.
The prisoners were then removed in custody.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Muy 2.
The Court took motions to-day.
MANSELL v. lIEDGECOCIC.

Mr. HINDMARSII, in this case, had obtained a rule nisi,
calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the defendant
should be retained in the custody of the Sheriff of Surrey.
Mr. JERVIS now showed cause. He said that 'en the 19th
of January last, the defendant had been in attendance in this
Court as a witness on a trial, and on his return home he was
followed by a Mr. Bassett and the sheriff's officers, in whose
hands there was a writ against him. They traced him out
of the direct line home, first to the Windmill public-house,
and next to the Surrey Arms ; and on his coming out of the
latter, at about half-past ten at night, they took him into
custxly. Mr. Jervis now contended that the sheriff's officer
had acted properly, and that there was nothing illegal in his
taking the defendant into custody under the circumstances
alleged, and that, therefor., the conditional rule must be
discharged.
Mr.. lIINDIURSH contended. that the defendant, having
gone to the Surrey Arms for the purpose of obtaining re-
freshment, was not liable to be taken into custody, particu-
larly as he had been in attendance on the Court from nine
o'clock ig_the morning until seven o'clock in the evening;
and it was therefore absolutelpAcessary he should have some
refreshment.

The COURT was of opinion that the conditional rule must
be discharged.—Rule nisi discharged accordingly.

AIL COURT, Mayll2.
Mr. Justice C ge sat in this Cow t this morning, but
the business broug on was of a purely technical character,
possessing no' interest for the public.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 2.
(Sittings in Banco.)
STEAD V. WILLIAMS.

The Court was occupied this day with an argument on a
motion for a new trial. The question was whether the plain-
tiff was the real inventor of a certain patent wood pavement,
or whether the supposed invention was generally known to
the public.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
• (YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.
THE WILL FORGEDIES.—Mr. Cope, the Governor of
her Majes:y's gaol of Newgate, waited upon the Lord
Mayor, in consequence of his Lordship's desire to com-
municate with him on the subject of a report which had
become very prevalent, to the effect that all the prisoners
who had been tried with Barber repeatedly declared
that delinquent to be innocent of the knowledge that, in
the proceedings adopted fur getting the sums of money,
sworn to as bequeathed to the different legatees, out of
the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the
National Debt, there had been any unfar play tihatever
resorted to.
Alderman Humphery was sitting with the Lord Mayor
when Mr. Cope attended
The LORD MAYOR said it appeared from what had
been represented in some publication, that there were
several ridiculous stqtement4 afloat relative to the
charges upon which Barber hal bk•en convicted, reflect-
ing upon the Magistrate who presided at the examina-
tions, as well as upon those who conducted the prosecu-
tionaagainst the persons accused of the offences in which
that individual had participated. It had been said that.
he (the Lord Mayor) had performed the characters of
judge and jury on the occasion he alluded to, and the
most positive assertions had been made that Mr. Barber
was declared, by those with whom he was said to have
conspired, to be wholly innocent of :he knowledge, or
even of the suspicion, that the wills in which he had been
professionally engaged by Fletcher and others, were not
bona fide instruments. There were, it would seem,
many who were influenced by the reiterated assurances
of Barber, that he merely acted in his professional capa-
city, and by the apparently candid appeals which he made-

to the public, by referring to the whole tenor of his previous
conduct, to suppose that he was a martyr. Thatimpression
might have been easily communicated to those who did
not take,the troub!e to read the evidence,; but nothing
could he more fAllacious in the minds of all who had
observed the proceedings ; and he would not have taken
the slightest notice of the matter, if it were not that
people who were endeavouring to excite sympathy in
favour of Barber continued to assert that those who were
charged as his accomplices most peremptorily declared
him to be an innocent man. His Lordship wished to
know from Mr. Cope, whether he had heard anything
relating to the subject before the prisoner had been re-
movedfro m Nesvga te. -
Alderman HUMPHERY—I think it necessary to inform
your Lordship that I was in the gaol of Newgate yes-
terday, and, having heard that such reports as you have
alluded to wera in circulation, I made very particular
inquiries upon the subject upon the spot. I have learned
that the principal persons concerned with Barber had
told a a very different story to Mr. Cope and the Chaplain
of the prison.

Mr. COPE said—After the conviction of the prisoners,
Barber expressed great dissatisfaction at the verdict,
and expressed an anxious desire to see and communicate
with the Sheriffs. I asked him for what purpose, being
willing to do anything consistently with my duty. lie
replied, I am desirous-that the Sheriffs should be pre-
sent while I read a declaration which I have drawn up,
and which I want Fletcher, Saunders, Mrs. Saunders, and
Mrs. Dorey to sign. It is to the effect that they all
declare my innocence as regards these transactions, and
that they believe I acted merely as a professional man.
I said that I did not believe the Sheriffs would consent
to be present under such circumstances, and that it
was also my opinion that the Magistrates would
object to agree to such a proposition ; and I sug-
ge.ited to him the propriety of ascertaining whether
the other prisoners would be willing to sign such a
declaration. Mr. Barber agreed to this suggestion,
and Mr. Davies, the ordinary, and I accordingly asked
each of the parties the necessary question. Mrs. Dorey,
when I asked her whether she was willing to sign a
declaration, that she believed Mr. Barber to have no
guilty knowledge of the transactions of which he was
convicted, replied " Certainly not, for Mr. Barber knew
all about it. .1 cannot sign any thing of the kind." I
also put the same question tb Fetcher, and, he also-de-
clined tosign any declaration of the kind, as Barber
was well acquainted with every thing about this trans-
action. To the chaplain, who communicated with them,
they spoke in similar terms, assuring him that they
could not make any such declaration, as Mr. Barber
knew every thing ~about the matter. When I went to
Saunders and his wife, and asked them whether they
would have any objection to sign an instrument of the
kind, they replied that they had not. Mrs. Saunders
stated, that she had been only concerned in one case,
and that she had only seen Mr. Barber, and that in his
prof,?ssional capacity, for a moment in the business ;
and of course she could have no objection.
Alderman FIUMPIIERY-HO the prisoners any op-
portunity of communicating with each • other ? Mr.
Cope—Not the least opportunity of communicating with
each other in the prison. They might have s: oken to-
gether in the dock of the Court. There was no possi-
bilityof preventing that. _ _

Alderman IlumPitEny—Mr. Cope has exactly stated
what I hard yesterday. I will answer for the correct-
ness of his report. _

.The LORD MAYOR—It is, in my opinion, necessary
to remove" wholly the impression that Barber, who was
shrewd and. clever enough to take in all the rest, was
himself the dupe of any of them. I should not, how-
ever, consider myself bound to take notice of the falla-
cious reports if I had not heard that they were most per-
tinaciously made, and had obtained credence to a certain
extent, for it has been added-.that; injustice has been
done to Barber by the alleged refusal t? allow the de-
claration of his innocence to be made `by his
:.fellow-
prisoners. _ _ _ _ _ _

- Alderman HUMPIIERY said, that what hail been just
stwed would most satisfactorily set the matter-at, rest.
He had felt very great astonishment at the prevalence
of the report that Barber was innocent, but he confessed
that that astonishment was much increased upon hear-
ing a brother Alderman positively declare that he was
convinced of the innocence of Barber.

The LORD AlAYon—Upon what did he found that
belief ? '

Alderman HUMPRERY—I believe, upon the mere
statements which Barber made to him in prison.
The LORD MAYOR—It is not to be won iered at, then,
that a report of such a nature should find people ready
to support it, when a City Magistrate actually gives it
currency. _ _