The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-10 00:00:00

Mr. V. LEE, in this case, applied for a rule to show causo
why a criminal information should not be filed against Mr.
Harris, Mayor of Abingdon. The application arose out of
alleged improper conduct on the part of the Mayor, in the
discharge of his magisterial duties. It appeared, from the
affidavits in the case, that the proceedings out of which the
present application originated, took place in the year 1842, in
consequence of a distraint for a borough rate made upon
James "Westpool ; and that the Mayor had privately got an
appraisement made, which he kept concealed. In the middle
of April last these facts came to the knowledge of the
parties.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN asked why the application was not
made earlier in the term.

Mr. LEE said that the parties were trading in different
localities, and some time was lust in getting the affidavits
prepared.

kr. Justice WIGHTMtN said that the applicant had al-
lowed the Easter Term to pass by, and he now applied so late
in the present term that it would be impossible for the de-
fendant to conic in and answer. No sufficient cause for this
delay was shown, and he should, therefore, refuse the motion

THE QUEEN V. THOMAS ARNOLD.

His Lordship was applied to for a writ of certiorari
to remove into this Court an inquisition that had been
taken before the Coroner for Pomfret on the body of
Charlotte Iliekr,on, whose death was occasioned by the
accidental discharge of a spring gun, which the defen-
dant had placed in his garden. The Coroner's jury re-
turned a verdict of manslaughter against the de-
fendant, who was thereupon committed to take
his trial for that offence under the Coroner's
warrant. The Learned Counsel further applied
for a rule to show cause why the defendant should
not be admitted to bail in the country in such recog-
nisances as his lordship might think proper to direct. It
appeared from the affidavit of the defendant, and on
which the present applications were founded, that the
defendant's garden had been frequently robbed, and that
for the protection of his property, and in order to
frighten the robbers, he had placed a spring-gun in this
garden, which, however, he had only charged with gun-
powder, using some thick brown paper as wadding, and
that on• the day when the unfortunate occurrence
took place. The defendant having been informed by one
of his servants that the deceased was about to go into
the garden for the purpose of hanging up some clothes,
he (defendant) told her that he would just go into the
garden and remove the wires which were connected
with the spring gun, as it would not be safe for the
deceased to go into the garden until he did so; upon
which the servant replied there would be no
occasion for that, as she was going into the garden with
the deceased, and would point out to her where the
wires were placed, and as the deceased would have
no occasion to go to that part of the garden, such
caution would be sufficient to prevent her incurring any
risk. Unfortunately, this was not the case, for shortly
after the deceased went into the garden the gun went
off. and the wadding was driven with such force against
the side of the deceased as to inflict a most serious injury,
and which ultimately occasioned her death. The defend-
ant swore positively that there was no ball placed in the
gun, and expressed his deep regret for the unfortunate
occurrence. Under these circumstances he (the Learned
Counsel) trusted his Lordship would think that the de.
fendant ought to be admitted to bail.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN, having read the affidavits,
granted both applications.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 8.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
COOKE V. MARKWELL.

Mr. Sergeant DONVIM:G (with whom was Mr. Marsh)
ap-
peared for the plaintiff; Mr. Jervis and another conducted the
case for the defendant.
This was an action to recover 1501., money won by the de-
fendant from the plaintiff, at one sitting, at the well-known
gamo of " loo."
The facts of the case, as detailed by the counsel for the
plaintiff, and in evidence, were briefly these
On the 29th of March last, the plaintiff, who is an attorney,
lost the above-mentioned sum, which W. R. Markwell
won. The defendant is the manager of Long's Hotel, Bond-
street, which is the property of his father, the proprietor of
the North and South American Coffee-house, Threadneedle-
street. On three several occasions the plaintiff, the defend-
ant, and three other persons played at 100, in a private room,
at the Rainbow Tavern, Fleet-street. On each occasion Mr.
Cooke was a considerable loser, which he attributed to ill
luck; but on the third occasion he had his suspicions
aroused by the conduct of a person to whom he had not
long been introduced, and who, he subsequently ascertained,
was a professed "black leg," although of gentlemanly appear-
ance and manners, and living in some style at the west end of
the town. The plaintiff, on the occasion alluded to, having
lost all the ready cash which he had about him, the landlord
of the house, Mr. Isaac Argent, with whom all the parties
were acquainted, gave an I) U to the defendant, for so much
of the money lost by the defendant, as he was unable then to
pay. lie became answerable for 961. for the plaintiff, and a
smaller sum for himself, both of which were paid on the fol-
lowing day, by Mr Argent. The action was brought under
an, Act passed in the reign of Queen, Anne, which provides
that if a person, at one sitting at cards, lose more than 101. to
another, he may receive the amount within threee months of
the day on which he lost it.
Mr. Jienvis having addressed the jury for the defendant,
Mr. Baron PARKE summed up the evidence, and the jury,
after much deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
for 96/.
THE RUNNING REIN CASE.—PEEL V. WEATHERBY.
_ _

Mr. MARTIN applied to the Court for an order direct-
ing the affidavit of Mr. Wood to be placed upon the file
of the Court. The object was to enable the use, as evi-
dence in the cause, of certain admissions which had been
made by Goodman Lou, in reference to the ownership
of Running Rein at the time of the race.
Mr. PLATT strongly objected to the proceeding upon
the ground that it had already been agreed that the affi-
davit was not to be used or acted on.

➢lr. MARTIN contended that use had already been
been made of it, when the matter was before the Court a
day or two since, by Mr. James, the junior of his
Learned Friend. But the fact was, that they could not
go to trial, because, by the affidavit in question, it was
clear that Goodman Levi was the owner or part owner
of the horse, whilst there is another affidavit wherein it
was sworn that Mr. Wood was the owner. The other
affidavit, having been used, ought, he submitted, to be
filed.

Mr. PLATT thought that his Learned Friend would
probably like to have the briefs filed also.
A great deal of discussion ensued, when
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said that the main question to
try was as to whether the horse Running Rein was a
three or a four year cld.
Mr. MARTIN said that if this affidavit of Mr. Wood's
was not to be used, the only affidavit in the cause was
that of Mr. Gill.

Eventually the Court decided that an affidavit as to
who was the real claimant of the horse was to be put in,
and until that had been done they could not proceed any
further.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
CITY POLICE COMMITTEE.

On Saturday, a youth, about 16 years of age, of the
name of Bartholomew Ford, a post-boy, in the service of
the paymaster at the General Post-office, was brought
up on a summons, charging him with cruelly torturing a
horse. under the following circumstances :
Police-constable No. 52.2 in the City force, stated that,
on the evening of the 31st of last month, while on duty
on Blackfriars-bridge, he saw a number of post-office
boys coming over th‘, bridge in the direction from the
General Post-office, and just as the defendant got oppo-
site witness, the belly-band, which secured the saddle,
gave way, and he slipped off, saddle and all. Witness.,
observing a large raw wound on the back of the horse
which the saddle covered when on, examined it, and
found the place as large as the palm of his hand.
Mr. Alderman FAREBROTHER said it was a most dis •
graceful practice of sending these horses out, and he
he hoped ere long the Court of' Aldermen would be ab!e
to obtain a clause in an Act of Parliament that would
enable them to punish such offenders like the master
with increased severity.
The post boy was then fined 11., and 65., the cost of
the summons, which the Magistrates hoped would be
Paid by the master.
Henry Mowdenzie, another post-boy of the General
ck
Post-office,
Bla •friars- bridge. was charged with furiously driving over
anildeawas fined 10s. and costs.
said
horses employed by
The officers, one
the
Post-office
in the Court,
sto:1 that the
most wretched that could be found in ianutthheormiteietsrowpoelries. the
BOW-STREET
was engaged a considerable time in the Thursday, after the hours of business, Mr. Jardine
eg Magistrates'ainst n
private room investigating a charge preferred
yourr, man of fashionable exterior, and a
Poland,b ho is known by the title of Count native Ostrowsk;,of
for making use of violent and threatening languaere-
specting the Emperor of Russia, to the effect that he
would assassinate his Majesty by shooting him the first
time he could have an opportunity. The offence was
committed at the house of the defendant's tailor, where
he had been to give an order for clothes, and the trades-
man's foreman apprehending that such violent threats
might be put into execution, proceeded to Scotland-
yard to apprise the proper authorities of the circum-
stance, in consequence of which the defendant was
speedily in the hands of the detective officers, at his
lodgings, 22, Mount-street, Grosvenor -square, dispensing
with the use of a warrant-from the Magistrates for that
purpose. What answer the defendant made to such an