The Sun.
London, England, 1826-10-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—(Titts EAT.)
,Sittings at Nifii Prins, before the LORD Cum JUSTICE and a
Special Jury.)
rAmettlx V. ATTY.

This was an action of trover to recover the vales of 680
sacks.

Mr. Seeant VAUGWLN steel th.”l.;,...Aat-
mi psalsts W'*3 a Hemp anu cloth actor at wileennitne, the
defendant was, in 1824, the Sheriff of Worcester, and
merely a nominal defendant in this action, the goods being
obtained under a fraudulent intention. In April 1821, a
person named Stanton was introduced by a Mr. Burridge
to the plaintiff's warehouse as a large corn factor and
miller in Worcester, and consequently in the habit of using
a great number of sacks. He wished to knew if the plain-
tiff could supply him at a more reasonable rate than what
he could purchase them for in the country ; the plaintiff
and Stanton agreed to the purchase of 580 sacks, and also
to pay money for them. Stanton gave the name of Ma-
ther and Co. of the East India Chambers as a reference;
the plaintiff sent his son to Mather and Co. who gave
Stanton a most excellent character, and stated that they
had dealt most extensively with him for many years; the
next day Stanton came to settle for the sacks and said that
he had unfortunately been paying away all his ready cash for
custom duties, and had nothing but bills drawn on persons in
Worcestershire ; as the plaintiff had received such a cha-
racter from Mather and Co., he did not hesitate to take
the bill, which was for 841., drawn on J. Packwood, in
Worcester; unfortunately for the plaintiff, Stanton on
passing the stable door saw a pony, which Stanton's son
took a fancy to ; Stanton at first seemed angry with his
son for thinking about keeping, as he said, in these hard
times, more " cats than caught mice;" but on being again
solicited by the son, asked the plaintiff if he chose to dis-
pose of it; the plaintiff not having any particular use for
the pony, said, that he should not object to sell it at a fair
price ; plaintiff then invited Stanton into the house to
take a glass of wine and talk about the pony, which he
agreed to purchase at the price asked by the plaintiff;
Stanton next admired the wine, and expressed an inten-
tion that he had of setting his eldest son up in business as
a wine-merchant, and how glad he should be to purchase
some wine of the quality of the wine he had been re-
galed with by the plaintiff, who having several pipes
lying in the docks, agreed to sell Stanton one of them
for 1201. Stanton, says the Learned Sergeant,had not only
purchased a quantity of sacks, a pony, and a pipe of wine,
but he had not yet finished his purchases, for on passing
through the shop, he cast his eye on a piece of canvass,
and said it would do to cover some of his craft, and had
no objection to purchase that also; this was agreed upon,
and Stanton gave another bill for 291. accepted by a J.
Bedford, payment for the pony and the canvass. The
of Stanton to purchase all things that came in
willingness of
his way, took the attention of the plaintiff, and he thought
it necessary to make enquiries as to the respectability of
Mather and Co., to whom Stanton had referred, and
found that they were worse than no reference at all, for
they had not the least respectability attached to their firm.
This circumstance naturally opened the eyes of the plain-
tiff, and although the pony and sacks had been sent off,
he went immediately to stop the delivery of them, and
succeeded in prevailing on the carrier to restore the pony,
but with respect to the sacks, he was not so fortunate,
for they
Stanton's. indemnified, and the action
were taken under an execution, by a creditor of
The sheriff was
was broil
_
ght against him for the value.
Evidence
Was p
Mr. Sergeant coduced in support of the learned
Sergeant's ease.
Cross appeared on behalf of the defendant,
Sheriff.
and "mended that there was no evidence to criminate the
The case principally turned on the
Sheriff's Officer, whoof said that he made the return.
evidence o the
..e
'-'n"er-Sheriff, and sent it in a parcel by
coach.
Sheriff's Officer--Wituess Id the goods, and paid the money
over to the attorney in the cells%
Cross-examined by Mr. Serge.ant C Received the war
na -
rant in a brown paper parcel,. "sc—
warrant was about a month in
that he made the return of the his ccompanied by any letter ; the
warrPoeilession. Witness can ,Mesa'
to a MAD to take to the coach-officetult others, and gave
; did not know what Winne

L. .r
of it atter ; witness Lori no complaint how the Under &lea of
its not being received.
Air. Sergeant CROSS said, that this witness's evidence did not
prove that he received the warrant either from the Sheriff or his
Under Sheriff.
The LORD Cutzr JUSTICE, in looking over the notes of Mr.
Justice Park, made on a former trial of this cause, found that this
witness deposed to having delivered the warrant to the Sheriff at
Stratford.on-st
Examined by the Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—The warrant was to
levy on the goods of John Stanton for 2031. 19s. sd. at the suit
of Wm. Reynolds.
Two Solicitort were called. who denoted to Stanton'a &rowing
- .
a bankrupt in 1814 and 182 4,'and to there being no dlvidenu
under either of the commissions.
Mr. Sergeant Cnoss, in addressing the Jury for the defendant
said, it may be that the goods were obtained fraudulently from the
plaintiff, yet the plaintiff may not have a just datoie of action
against the High Sheriff of the County of Warwick, the Sheriff
had a proviso put into his handl, to seise on the property of
John Stanton ; these goods had been Stanton'. property; the
goods were not on their transit from the buyer to the seller, they
were actually delivered at Birmingham; the plaintiff had suffered
this man, who was not to be trusted, to have goods to the amount
of 1001.; no notice had been given to the Sheriffs' officers of the
goods being the plaintiff's property, the person who sued out the
warrant, was a bona fide creditor; under these circumstances, they
had no right to set up a fraudulent sale, the goods were in the
plaintiffs possession ; neither were they his property, and, in
point of law, the officer was bound to tell.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the question was whether
or not the goods were the property of Stanton : it was certain that
no property could pass by fraud, and the most gross fraud had
been committed in this case, and which subjected some of the
parties to transportation.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 941,-

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS.-(THI3 DAN.)

(Before Mr. Justice PA AA and Baron GARR° w.)
POST-OFFICE ROBBERY.

---- ---
William Garlick stood indicted for stealing a letter con-
taining hank notes of the value of 1,000/., which came
into his possession by ♦irtue of his employment at the
General Post-office on the fith of December last.
Counsel for the prosecution, Messrs. BOLLAND, BAR-
NARD, and the SOLICITOR-GENERAL; for the prisoner,
Messrs. ADOLPHUS, BRODERICK, and LAW.
Mr. BARNARD opened the pleadings.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated the case for the pro-
secution ; the prisoner he said was indicted for a capital
offence, on an Act passed in the 52d year of his late Ma-
jesty's reign, and the prosecution was at the instance of
the Postmaster-General. The property stolen consisted
of bank notes to the amount of 1,000/., a bond, and two
bills of exchange, belonging to the firm of Sparrow and
Co., in Newcastle-upon-the-Line; these were enclosed in a
letter put into the post-office on the 7th of December, by
a clerk in the house of Sir R. C. Glyn and Co., and
ought to have reached its destination at twelve o'clbek on
the following day, but not a vestige had been traced re-
specting them from that time until October last, when a
person named Calligan, who shared in the booty, made a
discovery that led to this prosecution.

John Williams, a clerk in the Bank of England, examined by
Mr. BOLLAND.—Exchanged the 1,000/. note now produced on
the 7th of December, and gave in exchange one note of 300/. one
of 2001. and ten of 50/. to a clerk from the house of Glyn &
Benjamin Laurence Lowell.—Now as accountant in the Bank
of England, was a clerk in the house of Glyn & Co. ; on the 7th
December last got the 1,000/. note, now produced, changed in
the Bank of England, and received the notes mentioned by the
last witness in lieu, which he put on Mr. Druitt's desk, who was
the corresponding clerk of Glyn & Co.
J. Dennis Danniel.--A clerk in the house of Glyn & Co. ; en-
closed the notes which last witness received in exchange for the
1,000/. note, together with a bond, and two bills of exchange,
in a letter directed to Sparrow & Co. on the 7th of December i
put the letter, as was the practice, on a desk where letters for the
post-office were left.

Hobert Bailie was in the habit of taking letters from the house
of Glyn and Co., to the Post Office, took all those which were
on the letter desk, on the '7th of December, in a bag to the Post
Office ; but could not say whether the letter in question was
among them or not.

William Key was a clerk in the Liverpool division of the Post
OAscer which illtltr—kleffS-414enterrtimissisio.xnent'atrattikt;
on the 7th of Docent
Cross-examined by Mr. Bsonsaicx.—There were 12 or IS
persons employed in sorting the letters for that division, but all iu
one room ; besides these, there were six messengers, who carry
the letters when sorted, to the clerk of the division, who taxes and
marks them. There were about SO persons altogether, through
whose hands the letters go.

Elisabeth Brothers was post mistress of Newcastle-upon-the-
Line on the 7th of December, opened the letter bag from London
on the 9th, which was sealed as usual ; there was an enquiry made
for a letter for Sparrow and Co. on that day immediately after the
lettere had been sorted.

Wm. Tyson was a clerk in the house of Sparrow and Co., who
expected a letter containing a bond and bills of exchange on the
Bth of December. Witness enquired for such a letter at the Post-
office, but had not received it.

Benjamin Vandergoueht was President of the the Inland De-
partruent in the Post-office ; the prisoner was employed as a facer
and alio as collector of sorted letters on the 7th of December; in
that department, his duty was to go round to all the divisions and
collect the sorted letters ; mistakes frequently arose respecting the
Newcastlo.upon-the-Line and Newcastle-upon-Tyne letters; when
such did arise, such letters came-into the hands of the prisoner.
Cross-examined by Mr. Anocenos—The prisoner had been
employed a year or two, and conducted himself with extreme pro-
priety, and was esteemed by every person.
Daniel Callagan being called, the Counsel for the defendants oh-
jected to his competency, on the grounds of his having been con-
victed of a misdemeanour that disqualified him. The Clerk of
Clerkenwell Sessions produced the record of the conviction of
Daniel Collagen, in the year 1807, for issuing counterfeit money,
and sentenced to six mouths' imprisonment.—Mr. Beeby, the
keeper of Clerkenwell Gaol, identified Callagan as the man.
Baron GARROW reproved the Clerk of the Sessions for bring-
ing iu the original record without an order of Court.
Ma. ADOLYNUI then Admired the ;Court respecting the in-
competency of Callagan to give evidence. Counterfeiting coin
(he observed) involved the same principle as forgery and perjury,
and was a species of the erimos falsi, which, without a pardon,
totally disqualified kim from giving evidence.
Mr. Baonteicx and Mr. LAW spoke on the tame side.
The SOLICITOR.GINZRAL said that the crimen falsi watt
handed down from the Civil Law, and had no definite meaning
in our Court, The guilt of obtaining money under false pretences
was liable to the same objection here mad.. lie was not aware of
any instances of a misdemeanour, disqualifying any person from
giving testimony, except by the statute, and ha hoped the Court,
in the absence of any decision in point, would not entertain the
objection.
Mr. Justice PARK had no doubt as to the competency of the
witness; he expected a more accurate definition of the (Timen
falsi from the Learned Counsel. The instances quoted from Phil-
lips on evidence (which was no authority, and he hoped would not
for some year. to come) were not sufficiently descriptive of the
nature of the crimes fdsi. The statute itself, which rendered the
uttering of bad money a misdemeanour, by no means implied that
the convict should be infamous.

•
Mr. Baron GAII.IOW was of the lams opinion.
Daniel Warm examined by the Sottcyroa-GxwEnaL.—l am
a fishmonger ; hare been acquainted with the prisoner
fourteen years. I hare known Walsh these twenty years,
afterwardsine.
who is married to Goodman's daughter. I recollect
haring a conversation with the prisoner twelve months ago.
Inter,
t. *lto t op r tor innekr something g at
I Tl
ea lotwupson him 's, in Holborn, where I
at a public house in
Fleet Market, along with Walsh, who said that the prisoner
could do something for us; he has a situation in the Poet office,
and said to the prisoner, if you can get any thing, wag" knows
where I lire. Prisoner said he would he on the look out;
about three months after the prisoner came to me between nine
and tan at night, at my stall in Fleet-market, and asked me to
walk with him to John's-strict, where he had a parcel which he
believed contained 4, or boot. ; T went with him and he showed
me something in a white paper, having neither seal nor direction;
we both went to a Mr. walah'e house, who opened the parcel ;
and counted out 1,0001. in notes; there was also a bond, which
the prisoner burned, along with other. papers; we then went to
the Ivy public-house, in Goswell-street, where Goodman was; I
called Goodman out, something passed then between me and
Goodman ; I went back and told Walsh what Goodman had
offered for the notes, who gave them to nie to fetch to Goodman ;
the prisoner was not present during this conversation with Walsh ;
after I bad given the notes to Goodman I came back, but bad no

i
cOtieeteetioti with the prieolter ea the subject until the leitavehtt
night, when the prisoner and I went for the money ; received from
Walsh 2501., and the prisoner 350/. in swvereigne ; this was at
Walsh's house; 1j do not know how the notes were changed;
I saw no more of Goodman on this subject ; I met Good-
man and Garlick some time after this transaction by Rd-
dent, at a public house in the City-road. I have fre-
quently seen Goodman and Walsh together. I have visited them
at their own houses.

Air. Justice PaaF here asked Counsel for the prosecution, if
they could riot prove their case without this witness, being replied
to in the negative, hix r rdship addressed the Jury, and said, that
as the present witness was an accomplice, it was necessary
fur the !validity of his . firnony, that he should be
cortbficytdted in tnrnu!teri4,l midi, hut in this case there was
nothing to drlrtouteit that—the mere r.7.!=t of his having an oppor-
tunity from his situation in the Post-office of set7t'thls
the letter in
question was not sufficient to establish hisguilt ; he there ptt di-
rected the Jury to acquit him.—Not
Goodman was then put to the Bar, but as the evidence against
him was the same as the last, the Solicitor-General declines'
proceed, and Mr. Baron Garrow directed the Jury to acquit him.
Verdict—Not Guilty.