The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-19 00:00:00

GADSBY V. BARROW.

The appellant is the same as in the last case. He bad
objected to a vote claimed upon the 501 qualification,
because the claim wai not made from one holding, but
from several tenements, under different landlords. The
barrister decided against the objection.
Mr. Cockburn now appeared for the appellant against
that decision, which was supported by Mr. Cardwell.
The COURT ruled in favour of the appeal, and decided
that the qualification cannot be made up of different and
detached holdings, but must consist of one tenement,
held at will, and of the value of 501. per annum.

ECKERSLEY V. BARKER.

This was also an appeal from the decision of the re-
vising barrister for South Lancashire. The vote was
objected to on the ground of imperfect description of the
qualification, and the barrister decided against the ob-
jection.

After hearing Mr. Cockburn for the appellant, and
Mr. Sergeant Kinglake for the respondent,
The COURT took time to examine the schedules.
CUMING V. TOMS.

The appellant in this case having objected to the
qualification of the respondent as an elector of the
borough of Totnes, the revising barrister refused to
entertain the objection, on the ground that the notice
served upon the complainant was not sufficient.
Mr. COCKBURN, for the appellant, stated that the no-
tice was sent by post, in strict accordance with the 100th
section of the Act, which provides that at the time of
posting the notice a duplicate should be presented with
the letter to the postmaster, who, on comparing that
duplicate with the notice itself, should put the post-office
stamp, with the date upon both documents, and that the
production of the stamped duplicate should be proof of
the service of the notice. The revising barrister held
that the evidence of the person who delivered the letter
to the postmaster was necessary. That decision he (Mr.
Cockburn) submitted was directly opposed to the letter
and intention of the Act of Parliament

Mr. Sergeant KINOLARE contended that the words of
the Act required the notice to be presented to the post-
master by the objector himself, and that it was not com-
petent to do that by a third person ; or, if so, that third
person should be called to prove the service.
The COURT was of opinion that the Aat had been
complied with by the objector, and they reversed the
decision of the barrister.
Their Lordships then rose.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 18.
(Before Sir C. F. WILLIAMS.)

IN THE MATTER OF T. D. EARLES, DENTIST, OF NEW-

MAN• STREET.

The insolvent applied this day for his interim order,
but was opposed by Mr. Cooke for a Mr. Brimmer, the
landlord of a house in Newman-street, rented by the
insolvent at 75/. per annum. The insolvent had given a
bill of exchange, drawn by himself and accepted by a
Miss Crofts, his niece, for the twelvemonth's rent, due at
the next Christmas, with an understanding that if the
bill was not met at that time the insolvent would give
up possession in two months after. He (Mr. Cooke)
now applied to have the house given up, as his client,
Mr. Brimmer, had no wish to lose more by the insolvent.
He (Mr. Cooke) would also mention that the insolvent
had already filed a petition in some of the other courts,
which had, however, been dismissed by the Hon. Com-
missioner.

Sir C. WILLIAMS reprobated the course taken by this
as by too many insolvents, of petitioning the other
courts after being dismissed by one, they trusting that
some chance would intervene to enable them to pass
some Hon. Commissioner. It was a gross imposition
upon the Court, and he was of opinion that some rule
ought to be made, that where the insolvent had peti-
tioned before that petition should appear on the face of
the new application. _ _

Mr. CoOkE—Say that any respectable attorney ought
to apprise the Hon. Commissioner in such a case.
Sir C. WILLIAMS said he would not grant the order,
until the house was given up; and the matter was deferred
for a fortnight, in order that the transfer should be made.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RR TOLLEMACHE, LORD RUNTINOTOWER.
This day having been appointed for the final hearing
in this case, his Lordship attended in Court, accompanied
by his solicitor, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. EDWIN JAMES applied for a futher adjournment.
His Lordship was placed in the somewhat singular posi-
tion of an only son to a wealthy nobleman, but yet who
was altogether dependent upon his mothpr for his
pecuniary allowances. He hoped to be enabled, however,
to pay all creditors, and at the next hearing he should be
competent to say in what manner, for as to-morrow was
appointed for the judgment in another court in a suit
for an increased allowance entered by Lady Dysart
against her husband, which suit ought and was likely to
be decided in her favour, she would be enabled to spare
more to her son than at present she could possibly do
from her limited allowance of 3,0001 per annum. His
Lordship's father, with an income of 50,0001. a year, had
not expended one shilling upon his son from the day he
was sent to Eton, where of course he was obliged to live
as did his equals. Upon that ground he craved a further
day, before judgment would be given by his Honour.
Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE said he wonld rather
rest on the justice of the father than the affection of the
mother.

Mr. CHAMBERS attended for some of the creditors, but
as they only wanted. their money, he could have no hesi-
tation in acceding to Mr. James's proposition, as it seemed
a very reasonable one.
The case was then deferred till the 20th of January.

In consequence of the receipt by Sir W. Magnay,
Bart., the late Lord Mayor, of a letter from Sir James
Graham, recommending the consideration of the project
of discontinuing the evening sittings of the Central
Criminal Court, the experiment is about to be tried.
On account of the shortness of the notice it will not be
possible to discontinue the evening sittings on the days
appointed for the next session, but preparations will be
made for testing the efficacy of the proposed plan in the
second session of the mayoralty, and the magistrates
will report the result accordingly.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

A young woman, named Edith Bloomfrid, was
brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with
having committed a felony.
Mrs. Hughes, the wife of a haberdasher, in Grace-
church-street, stated that the prisoner purchased a
table-cover in the shop for three shillings, and pre-
sented a sovereign to be changed. A buy, who at-
tended the shop, handed the sovereign to witness, who
was at a desk, and who gave to the boy a half-sove-
reign, two half-crowns, and two shillings, to hand to
the young woman. The prisoner said to the boy,
"You have not given me the half-sovereign." The
boy, who was a stupid fellow, had not counted the
money, as he ought to have done, and he stated that
he dia not see the half-sovereign.

The LORD MAYOR expressed some surprise at the
idea of charging a person, under such circumstances,
with a robbery.
Mrs. Hughes said that she had never given the
prisoner into custody. The prisoner insisted upon
being searched, and in that manner she got into the
custody of a policeman, who brought her before his
Lordship.
The prisoner declared that she had never received
the half-sovereign from the boy at all.
The LORD MAYOR—There is not the slightest im-
putation upon you, and the policeman acted very
foolishly in taking you into custody. There is foun-
dation for an action for false imprisonment in such
a case, and I regret very much that you have been
subjected to such annoyance.
Mrs. Hughes very readily gave the full change to
the prisoner, who respectfully thanked his Lordship
for so marked an interposition.
Since the Lord Mayor sentenced five young women
for being disorderly, and breaking the Mansion•hnuse
windows, to imprisonment for two months in Bride-
well, and intimated that it was his intention to punish
f-very window-bris :ker to that extent, there has not
been a single case of window-breaking in that exten-
sive district.

The following letter, inclosing a Post-office order
for 51., was received by Sir Peter Laurie at the Man-
sion-house, and Sir Peter handed it to Mr. Goodman,
the chief clerk :

" The Rev. Thomas Strong presents his compli-
ments to Sir Peter Laurie, and having read the very
affecting case of Charles Harley, from Ely, whose
wife robbed him, and deserted her children, in the
Britannia, of the 9th inst., takes the liberty of re-
questing two sovereigns may be forwarded to him,
should Sir Peter not have lost sight of the poor
fellow. Mr. Strong begs to inclose a Post-office
order for this purpose, and requests Sir Peter will
put the remaining three sovereigns into the poor-
hox—a fund so kindly and liberally expended that
Mr. S. only regrets he has not more to contribute to
it. Mr. Strong would feel obliged by Sir Peter
Laurie ordering a note to be sent to him, per post,
acknowledging the safe arrival of the Post-office order.
" Southernhay, Exeter, Nov. 15."
GUILDHALL.

Sarah Rogers was charged with having committed a
violent assault on a copper-plate printer named Drake.
Mr. Humphries attended to conduct the case for the
complainant.
Mr. Drake stated that he was a single man, and that
he had lived with the defendant for three years, that she
had had two children by him, both of whom were dead.
They separated by mutual consent in August last, and
he agreed to allow her 2s. 6d, a week, which he had
punctually paid her. She came to his place of work
last Saturday, and offered to fight him, but stated that
she would not annoy him if he would give her a glass
of ale, which he did, but she did not ad-
here to her agreement, as she struck him se-
veral times, scratched his face, and used other violence
towards him. He had had to give her into custody on
similar charges several times before. She was a bad
woman, and had made away with almost everything that
he had possessed.
The young woman said she was then in the family
way by the complainant., and that she had been cruelly
deceived by him. Ile had repeatedly told her that if
she wanted money she might go and seek it by a life of
prostitution. She had formerly led a respectable life as
a servant until she knew the complainant. She had now
lost her character, and could not obtain a situation.

She was discharged, the complainant agreeing to pay
the weekly pittance at this office, from whence the young
woman would receive it.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Wm. Simpson, a flashily-dressed young man, was
charged with stealing a sovereign, under the following
circumstances :

George Thomas stated that about 4 o'clock yesterday
morning, having been out on a " spree," he went into
Rico's Coffee-house, No. 64, High-street, St. Giles's, and
while taking some refreshment there, he put down a
sovereign on the table, immediately the prisoner, who
was in an adjoining box with two or three others, came
to him and said " that sounds like a bad sovereign."
Prosecutor replied he was sure it was good. Prisoner
said " I'll bet you half-a-crown it's a bad one," and
directly one of the prisoner's companions took the sove-
reign up off the table, and after it had been passed from
one to another, he again saw it in the prisoner's hand,
but on asking for it to be returned to him, the whole
party denied having it, he in consequence gave the pri-
soner into custody, as he had last seen it in his possession.
The prisoner said he did not know where the prose-
cutor's sovereign went to.
Mr. HARDWICK said the prosecutor was a silly fellow
not to take better care of his money. Under the cir-
cumstances a charge of felony could not be substan-
tiated; the prisoner must, therefore, be discharged, and
the prosecutor might summon him for the 20s. at the
Court of Requests.