The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-30 00:00:00

IN RE GILBERT.

Mr. JERVIS said that in this case his Lordship might
recollect that the Learned Solicitor-General had applied
for and obtained a rule for a habeas corpus to bring up
the bodies of two children of the names of Francis and
Joseph Gilbert, on the application of the mother.
The children were at the time in the
custody of a gentleman, named Schwenk,
who had brought up the deceased father and his brother,
one of the co-trustees in this case ; he having reason to
believe that the moral and religious education of the
children were neglected while under the mother's care,
and with the full approbation of Mr. Schwenk and his
wife, sent them to a most respectable school. It had
been arranged, with his Lot dship's approbation, that the
children should, by a fiction, be considered before the
Court, and that they should remain at school accord-
ingly. William Gilbert, while in possession of the chil-
dren, made a return to the Court, in obedience to his
Lordship's direction, without preducii g the bodies
of the children, the return, in effect, stating
that he was appointed testamentary guardian along
with the widow, and that believing their education
not attended to, he had, with Mr. Schwenk's approba-
tion, sent them to school. His Learned Friend Mr.
Iloggins and himself were then prepared to show just
cause why the children should still be kept at school ;
but it now appeared that the mother of the children had
learned where they Were, and had gone there and obtained
forcible possession of them. This was no doubt a con-
tempt of Court, and a warrant of attachment might in
cons( quence be issued, but he (Mr. Jervis) would at pre-
sent content himself with filing certain affidavits.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
LACEY V. BUNN.

Mr. OGLE moved for a rule, calling on the plaintiff
in this case to show cause why defendant should not be
allowed to add special pleas to the record, in addi-
tion to the general issue. The declaration was on a
contract between the parties, that plaintiff would at
Christmas next following enter the service of defendant.
as manager of Drury-lane Theatre, and would act and
perform in light comedy during the remainder of the
season, the defendant agreeing to retain to him for that
time at a salary of nine guineas a week. In other parts
of the contract plaintiff gave defendant the power
of declaring it to be void, if he performed at any
other house in the stipulated time, or refused, after
a week's notice, to act in a piece which was not light
comedy. Plaintiff having made default in some of these
particulars, an application of the same nature with the
present was made to Baron Rolfe at chambers, who did
not :decide on it, but allowed three days, in which to
obtain the opinion of the Court.
The LonD CHIEF BARON—When was this condition
wade ?

Mr. OGLE—It was a part of the contract, my Lord.
• -••-

Baron PARKE—I should like to see it.

Mr. OGLE—Unfortunately, my Lord, I have it not
with me. It does not appear in the plea, and we do not
want to compare it with the original document. But de-
ft•ndant is advised that it would not be safe to go to
trial iith the record as it now is.

Baron PARKE—There is a case in point, respecting
contract and plea.
Mr. OGLE—It is the case of Nash v. Burge, in the
11th Meeson and We'shy.
The LORD CHIEF BAlZON—There the plea qualifies
the contract recited in the declaration. _

Baron PA.RKE—The case I speak of is of much earlier
date.

Mr. OGLE.—Your Loraship, probably, alludes to the
case of Smart v. Hyde, i i the 7th volume of the same
report =.
Baron PARKE—Just so. It aprears to me a sufficient
warrant for your application.
Baron ALDERSON—What p'eas do you want to add ?
Mr. OGLE—It was part of the contract, that the de
fendant could oblige plaintiff to play in a piece which was
not light comedy, after a certain notice. Notice NI ai
accordingly. given him to appear in the character of
Ferdinand, in the Tempest, which he refused to do.
Baron ALDERSON—The principal issue then appears
to be, whether the Tempest be or be not a light comedy.
Mr. OGLE—No doubt, my Lord, that question is suf-
ficiently prolific to give rise to an argument, if necessary,
as abstruse as any in law. The question is, whether it
was any part of plaintiff's duty to appear in the chst•
racter of Ferdinand after the regular notice, and whether
the contract had not been rendered void by his net hay-
ing done so. There are, however, other points with
which I will not now trouble the Court.

Baron PARE—Do you then mean to say, Mr. Ogle,
that in the same document there are two conditions—
first, that plaintiff shall play in light comedy when
called upon to do so, and in other f•pacies of dramatic
representation after a certain notice ?
Mr. OGLE—Yes, my Lord; he en.;aged to play in light
comedy on demand, and in other pieces at seven days
after date.—(Laughter.)
Baron PARXE—I should like to know if these two
conditions are really in the contract ?
Mr. OGLE replied that as his time of pleading expired
to•day, there would not be sufficient time.
It was ultimately arranged that the rule should be
drawn up, not absolute, and that plaintiff should to-mor-
row show cause at chambers, the time of pleading being
in the meantime extended for three days.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS
(TlllB DAY.)
(Before the ASSISTANT-JUDGE )
John Edwards, a boy, whose head scarcely reached
up to the top of the bar, was indicted for stealing ss.
and a handkerchief, the property of Mary Ann Brown.
It appeared by the evidence of the prosecutrix, that
the prisoner, accompanied by a man who appeared to be
his director, followed her along Barbican and into
Worship-street, when, feeling a tug at her pocket, she
turned round, and saw the prisoner with the handker-
chief in his hand, which he immediately dropped upon
the ground. His companion made his escape, but some
of the bystanders detained the prisoner, and handed him
over to a policeman.
In his defence the prisoner said that the lady had
dropped the articles which he was charged with stealing.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The officer of the Court handed up to the Assistant-
Judge no less than four previous convictions against the
prisoner, whom the goalers described as an incorrigible
young thief.
The Learned ASSISTANT-JUDGE sentenced him to
seven years' transportation, intimating at the same time
that on account of his extreme youth he would be sent
to Parkhurst Penitentiary.
Mary Walsh, a girl about thirteen 'years of age, was
indicted for stealing a coat, of the value of Bs., the pro-
perty of John Summers, her master.
It appeared by the evidence that the prosecutor had
taken the prisoner into his employment at a time when
she was in the greatest destitution, having been deserted
by both her parents. In less than a week after being
taken into his employment, she committed the robbery
for which she was indicted. _ _

The jury at once returned a verdict of Guilty, and the
Court sentenced her to three months' imprisonment, the
last fortnight to be solitary.

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
AFFAIR OF " HoNoun."—A young man of gentle-
manly appearance, who gave his name as John Haig,
and stated that he was a farmer from the county of
Meath, in Ireland, was placed at the bar before Mr.
Twy ford, charged with assaulting Mr. Ivimy, the soli.
citor of Chancery-lane.
The complainant stated that the defendant this morn-
ing came into his office, and, on being introduced to him,
said that he called on the part of Major Cartwright,
to require that complainant should retract certain
expressions which he had used in reference to the
major's conduct. Complainant asked the defendant if he
knew the circumstances of the case between him and
Major Cartwright? To which Mr. Haig replied, that
the circumstance were of no consequence whatever, as
he only wanted an apology. Mr. Ivimy answered that
he would retract nothing until he was convinced that
what he had said was untrue ; upon which
the defendant told him to name a third
person. This, he refused, and defendant called