The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-12 00:00:00

CA UNT V. BYERS.

This was an action brought by Caunt, the celebrated
pugilist, against the defendant, a publican in Marylebone, to
recover the sum of 51., given to the defendant under the cir•
cumstances detailed below.

Mr. Knowles appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Jervis for
he defendant.

A fight was appointed to take place on the 19th of October
last, between two men of the names of Jones and
Lawler. It was to be a fight for 5/., or as much
more as might be agreed upon or could be ob-
taMed, the money being subscribed by different parties.
The last deposit having been made, Caunt and Byers tossed
up to decide who should be stakeholder. The defendant won
the toss, whereupon the plaintiff handed over to him the 5/.
The fight came off on the 19th of October, at Greenhithe,
and terminated in a wrangle. The plaintiff then gave notice
to the defendant not to pay the money, stating that if he
did so, he should s
,e him for the amount. Notwith-
standing this notice, the defendant paid the money
over. In the month of December, an attorney's clerk
waited upon him with a letter, demanding the
amount, on which occasion the defendant said he did not
wish to keep Caunt out of his money, and if he would come
to him he would pay him over a bottle of wine. The money
was not paid, and hence the present action was brought.
Witnesses were called who proved the payment of the
money.
Mr. JERVIS, on behalf of the defendant, contended that the
transaction being an illegal one, the money could not be re-
covered. It must be regarded as either part of the stake, or
a wager upon an illegal act ; and in either view the plaintiff
could not succeed..
Mr. KNOWLES cited several cases to show that similar
actions hid been entertained, and that the plaintiff had, in
fact, recovered.

The LORD CHIEF BARON said the jury could not enter
into the fighting part of the case. The question really was,
whether the money was the plaintiff's or not. The agree-
ment would certainly lead to the inference that
,the money
was handed over by Cannt to Byers, in the character of
stakeholder; and if the jury were satisfied of that, Caunt had
no more right to recover the money,, not being his except as
a stakeholder, than any other person in the kingdom,
Verdict for the defendant.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Feb. 11.
(Before the Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)
LN RE CHARLES CRICKMAY.
This insolvent had been heard before Mr. Commissioner
Harris, on Friday last, when it appeared that a distress bad
been put in upon his preiniies, and a large quantity of
musket-stocks were seized. These goods were 'valued by the
distraining broker at 61., but upon being sold upwards of 20/.
was realised for them.
The Learned COMMISSIONER expressed his surprise at the
extraordinary and unaccountable difference between the sum‘
placed upon the property by the broker and that realised
public sale. The rent was 41. 155., and the expenses of the
distress 2L is. 6d., making altogether 61. 16s. 6d., the differ
ence between wich and the 201. he (the broker) retained,
as he did not know to whom it was to be paid.
Mr. Commissioner limus, with paid.
said said the
broker ought to have at once paid the balance into Court.
Upon the case being called on to-day, it was stated that
the broker had not as vet paid the money into Court.
The COURT anonnced its intention of adopting the most
stringent measures fin. the punishment of such neglect and
contempt; and ordered the case to stand adjourned for this
purpose.
The insolvent, upon being removed back to prison, com-
plained loudly at the hardships he suffered owing to the ne-
glect and dishonesty of the broker.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
Before the AsslsTArr-JUDGE and a full Bench of Magis-

trates.)
The Adjourned General Sessions for the county of Middle-
sex commenced yesterdry morning, kt ten o'clock, in th
Court-house, Clerkenveell-green.
The calendar contains the names of upwards of 100 pri-
soners, of whom 85 were charged - with the commission of
felony, the remainder being casts of assault and misde-
MAIM

TAU () 3 t

A ;F_:;

The Learned ASSISTANT JUDGE briefly addrersed the
Grand Jury.

-eliTz;l3.dippreidrd; a lad about -I 7 years of -age,- was in-
dkftd for stealing four half-crowns and a quantity-of copper
maneysf the property ofJames Abel, his employer.
It appeared that the prisoner, whose family and corr-
tit:lie/is Were very respectable, had entered the prosecutor's,
service abottt two years ago, and. up to a. day or two before;
the commissloti of the rdlkery, the highest opinion was enter-.
tamped of his honesty. At length various bums of money being
nikeed from the • till, suspicion fell upon the prisoner, and
Nine twoney wag marked and placed in the shop drawer. In
all hoof afterwards, upon searching the prisoner, the moneys
named fn (be indictment were found upon him, each coin
bearing the private mark which had been placed upon it-by
the prosecutor.
. .
The jury at once returned a verdict of Guilty, and the
Court sentenced the prisoner, whO wept bitterly, and seemed
to feel his position acutely, to four months' iing.risenmest
with hard labour, in the Douse of Correction.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL. .

_ -
Julius Henrick Bruck, and Ferdinand Zadock Hershieg
of Paneras-lane, merchants, and Jacob Janes, a seileitor'a
clerk, attended a re-examination upon a charge of confederat-
ing together to defraud Frederick Barrel!, by persuading hint
to become a partner in the firm of Bruck and Co., importetg
of German goods, by falsely pretending the said firm were
carrying on a most prosperous -trade, by which they turned
60 per cent. per annum on the capital employed ; whereas, in
fact, the said firm was not in a prosperous condition ; and
250/., which Mr. Barrell advanced for the purpose of buyihs;
goods, was employed in pacifying dunning creditors.
Mr. Clarkson attended, with Mr. Flower for the prosecu-
tion; and Mr. Bodkin, with Mr. Lewis,. Mr. Sydney, =4
another solicitor, for the defendants.
Dr. Isaac Esechiel, who was alleged to have taken a part
in the conspiracy, and who was summoned, was called,
did not answer, nor was he represented by attorney. ,
Mr. Bodkin said the case was adjourned at the last hear-
ing at the desire of the complainant, to enable 'him to obtain
further evidence, and the defendants now applied that,the
same favour might be shown to them. He was n 4 in a
condition that day to put in 'so full -an answer to tks case
opened on the other side as he wished. lie therefore prayed
an adjournment to the 24th instant.
Mr. Clarkson said he would offer no' opposition to the ad-
journment, but he wished to put some evidence on the mi-
nutes, as it was inconvenient to persons holding official situa-
tions to be absent. _

Mr. Bodkin had no objection to relieving these witnmeal
in the way proposed.
Francis Ross, clerk to the Registrar of the. Court of Re-
view, said he had searched the books in respect to the
bankruptcy of Ferdinand Zadock Hersbfeld in 1828, and
found that no certificate had been granted to the bankrupt.
John Cox, acting assignee uneer the fiat, proved that the
defendant was the same person as was then declared bank-
rupt. The estate paid 31/.id. in the pound, and no more.
Mr. Clarkson then put in an office copy of an extract from
the schedule of Hershfeld, filed in the Insolvent Court, at the
same time that he was declared a bankrupt. Upon his ap-
plication to be relieved he was remanded fi,r three months.
His debts were set down at 13,000/., bis credits at 2391. A
certificate-from the Insolvent Court further showold-that no
part of these credits had been realised.
This was the whole of the evidence proposed to be now
given.
Mr. Alderman HUGHES said he had received some anony-
mous letters relating to parties in this case, which web not
very creditable to them ; but the communications being
anonymous, lie could not place any dependence on them.
Mr. Clarkson said he was not aware of, any such lettere,
nor to which side they referred.
Mr. Bodkin observed that there could be no doubt that the
proper way to dispose of all anonymous communications was
to commit them to the flames. No dependence whatever
could be placed upon them.
The examination was then adjourned to Feb. 24.
Edward-Sturt, a shabbilly dressed, unhappy-looking young
man, was brought up on remand, charged with having ob-
tained several shawls and a piece of silk, value 131. 6s. 640.,
from Messrs. Bradbury and Co., wholesale warehousemen,
_ by
means of false orders, purporting to be signed by J. Bird,
silk-mercer, of the Commercial-road. '
It appeared that, in the latter end of December lsiat„ the
prisoner presented the orders in question, and the irticUs
were supplied to him in the belief that he was sent by Mr.
Bird, who dealt with the house, and who was in the habit of
settling his account monthly, but who disclaimed all knowledge
of the prisoner, statingthat he had never to the best of his re-
collection seen him before. When the goods were supplied to
him by Messrs. Bradbury's warehouseman, he stated that his
name was Scott. On the sth of this month one of the young
men who had supplied him with the articles, met the pri-
soner in the Whitechapel-road, and gave him into custody.
The depositions of the witnesses having been taken, pre-
vious to committing the prisoner for trial,
Mr. Humphreys, the solicitor, stated that he was instructed
to prefer a charge against the prisoner by Messrs. Morrison
and Dillon, of Fore-street. He stated that, in April, 1843, the
prisoner was convicted, at Reading, of obtaining goods from
a Mr. Hutchinson by false pretences, and was sentenced to
two years' imprisonment. Before that time, hOwever, he had
obtained, by similar means, a quantity of property . from
Messrs. Morrison and Co. and Messrs. Porson and Co., and a
detainer was lodged against him, with the governor of the
gaol, that he might be indicted for the offence when his term
of imprisonment had expired. The visiting justices, however,
after he had been imprisoned for fourteen months,
recommended his liberation, on the ground of good conduct.
This was mentioned to Messrs. Morrison and Co., who aban-
doned their intention of prosecuting him, on the understand-
ing that-he should leave the country, and it was believed
that he had gone to America. As -he had not fulfilled that
agreement, Messrs. Morrison and Co. had felt it"their dpty-
to come forward and to prosecute the prisoner.. Aa it was
necessary that witnesses should be in attendance to prove
the charge against the prisoner, ho should ask the Alderman
to remand him to a future day.
A gentleman from Messrs. Ashurst's, the solicitors,identified
the prisoner as the person who had obtained the'property,
worth upwards of forty pounds, from Messrs. Morrison
and Co.

Sir P. LAURIE said that when a man got out. of prison
through the instrumentality of his friends on the understand-
ing that he should leave the country, and did not keep that
agreement, his opinion was that he ought to be severely
punished.
The prisoner said he was only liberated in May, last year,
and that he could not raise sufficient money to carry him to
America.

Sir P. Lam,: added that when once a man had the mis-
fortune to get into prison and was liberated, he was frequently
compelled to resort to his former practises for a living, as,
from having lost his character, no one would employ him,
and the best thing that could be done for him was to send
him out of the country—elsewhere he might be reclaimed,
and become an useful member of society.
The prisoner was again remanded.
BOW-STREET.

Lawrence Donoughue was charged by a person named
Hugget with assaulting him the previous evening, while
drinking at a public-house in Newton-street, Holborn, oceit-
pied by a Mr. Frogarty.
The complainant said that he went into the house with a
friend to have a pot of ale. They sat down in the front room
on the first-floor, where the defendant and a number of others
were drinking. This was about eleven o'clock. They had
not been long in when an altercation took place respecting
Catholics and Protestants, on which the defendant rose from,
his seat and struck the complainant over the eye a severe
blow. He had not given him the least provoeation,
or taken any part whatever in the conversation.
In fact, he had never seen the party before. He
expected his friend presently in Court, who would bear out
the statement he had made. The friend referred to not
making his appearance Donoughue was called upon fir his
defence, when he denied that he had struck complainant
without provocation, but rather that he was struck first, and
had only returned the blow in defence, as he would show by
a witness whom he had brought.
John Frogarty was then called, who stated that he was the
father of the landlord of the public-house, and was present
during the time that the alleged assault was said to have
been committed. The fact was, the company into which the
complainant had intruded himself was a cock-and-hen club,
the regulations of whiCh required that every person who
entered the .room should pay sixpence. For this
they were- allowed some drink. The complainant.
paid the sixpence on entering the room, but is companion
refused. The latter was repeatedly requested to do so. but
would not, and made use of the most blackguard language,
when Donoughue rose, backed by several of the company, to
put him down stairs. Hugget now interfered, and began to
strike about him right and left. • It was then that the defen-
dant resorted to blows, but not before he had been
struck once or twice himself. They were a ' pair of the big-
gest blackguards he had ever seen, and he had been at
thousands of cock-and-hen clubs in his life. _ _ _

The constable who took the defendant into custody said
that there was a regular row in the house when he was
called in..

The friend of the complainant having now come into
Court, was called upon, when he repeated a similar story to
that of the latter, with the adMission that he had not paid
the sixpence required of him, but said he was ignorant of its
being a club as represented.
Mr. JARDINE said the evidence was so conflicting that he
must dismiss the case, and cautioned Mr.F rogarty, that if these
cock-and-hen clubs originated any more such' rows, the
license of his house would be in jeopardy. Such clubs were
illegal, and he trusted warning would be taken to prevent oc-
currences of that kind.