The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-20 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Jan. 18.

THE IPSWICH MURDERERS —APPESI. TO THE JUDGES.
The judges assembled this afternoon in the Exchequer
Court, for the purpose of hearing the argument of
counsel on behalf of the two Howells and Shipley, who
were sentenced to death by Mr. Justice Williams, at the
late Ipswich assizes, for the murder of a policeman
named M'Fadden. The error assigned was the inadmis-
sibility of certain evidence received. The evidence was
the confession of the parties.
Mr. PRENDERGAST, who appeared on behalf of the
prisoners, addressed the Court in a long and ingenious
speech, contending that part of the evidence adduced on
the trial was inadmissible; and in support of his argu-
ment quoted several law cases to show that the evidence
in question ought not to have been admitted.
Mr. GORDON arose and was about to address the
Court, when
Lord DENMAN, on behalf of himself and his learned
brethren, intimated that they did not think it necessary
for him to do so, as they (the judges) were of opinion
that there was no argument before them to show that
the evidence was not admissible.
The decision of the judge who tried the case was,
therefore, confirmed, and the unfortunate men are left
for execution.

CONSISTORY COURT, Jan. 18.
BRITTEN V. BRITTEN.
This was a case of divorce by reason of adultery, pro-
moted by Thomas Britten, Esq., against his wife, for the
commission of adultery with Mr. Edward Henry Keeling,
of the firm of Clark, -Keeling, and Clark, wine brokers,
in Great Tower-street, City.
Shortly after the case was opened by Dr. Addams, the
Court inquired whether it was a suit in pmnam?
Dr. ADDAMS—It is, sir.
The CoURT—I have no sort of occasion to trouble you.
Dr. ADDAMS—I submit it is clear.
The COURT—It is impossible that a case can bo wore
clearly proved. It is quite unnecessary to enter into the
circumstances of the case. It can do no good to the
parties or to the public. Let the parties be called.
The REGISTRAR—They have been called.
The Court then signed the sentence of separation.

SHERIFFS' COURT. Jan. 18.
(Before Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK.)
FORD V. DAVIS.
Mr. VALENTINE LEE, who appeared for the plaintiff,
stated that his client is a bootmaker, on Holborn-hill,
and had brought this action to recover 14/. from the de-
fendant, Cyrus Davis, the ex-pugilist and landlord of the
Plough public-house, in Giltspur-street,West Smithfield.
In the month of October last a watchmaker named
Shimmell, being in want of money, deposited a gold
watch with the plaintiff as a security for 141. Shortly
afterwards, Shimmell told plaintiff that he could dispose
of the watch, and it was deposited with him, the defen-
dant undertaking to pay the plaintiff the 14/. in the
event of a sale, or to return the watch. Ford having
ascertained that the watch had been raffled in a billiard-
foom belonging to Davis, called on him and asked for his
money in the presence of witnesses, and on that oc-
elision the defendant said that he had forgotten the cir-
cumstance, but would settle with him in a few days.
Several days elapsed, and no money being forthcoming,
Ford again applied to Davis, when he guaranteed the
payment of the money. High words then ensued ; the
defendant calling the defendant a liar, and, finally,
putting down two 51. notes, and offering to bet that
amount that he had never made any promise relative to
the watch or money. The plaintiff, in his excitement,
was rash enough to put down a similar amount, where-
upon defendant handed the 201. to his wife, saying,
" Here, old woman, you stick to this," and the same is
still retained in spite of the interference of mutual friends,
so that Ford is minus his 10!. and his watch, or the value
thereof. This action, however, was only brought for the
141., leaving the bet of 101 the subject of future pro-
ceedings.
Two respectable witnesses were ealled, and they proved
the promise to pay the 141., and also the raffle. For
some reason, however, unknown to them, he (defendant)
handed the amount paid by the subscribers to the raffle
to Shimmell.
Mr. Lusrf, for the defence, contended that there was
not sufficient proof that his client was bound to restore
the watch, or give 141 to the plaintiff. The defendant
had the watch raffled. but he considered that it was for
the mutual benefit of Ford and Shimmell, and he thought
they would settle the matter between them. Mr. Davis
was willing to restore the watch, and would have done
so on the first application, but his son, who was the
winner of it, had gone to the theatre with it on his
person. On the following day it was offered to the
plaintiff. and he refused to accept it.
Mr. Shimmell was called for the defence, and, in his
cross-examination, he admitted the receipt of the produce
of the raffle, and the application of it to his own use, and
that he afterwards placed in defendant's hands a watch
of much greater value as a security to repay the plaintiff,
which watch was, to the best of his knowledge, in de-
fendant's custody. He added that he was present when
Davis objected to pay the 141, and had recently heard
him say that he would bet 101. that he never undertook
to pay the 141. He saw each of them put down 101, and
likewise saw the defendant pass the 201 to his wife,
telling her to keep it. Ha believed that it was in her
possession at the present time—in fact, he heard de-
fendant admit that such was the case within a very
few days.
Mr. Luau here rose from his seat, and consented to a
verdict for the plaintiff for the 14/.
Mr. VALENTINE LEE remarked that the matter would
not end there, it being his client's intention to take other
proceedings for the recovery of the 10/.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 18.
IN RE TITOMAS COWLEY JONES.-CLAIM TO PROVE UNDER