The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-18 00:00:00

GRIFFITII V. RICKETTS.

The Court was engaged during the morning in hearing the
arguments in the above part-heard case, which came before
the Court on demurrer. The case was of no interest except
to the parties immediately concerned.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY).
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. HAYNES AND OTHERS.
-

This was an indictment against the defendants, who were
the parish officers of the parish of St. Michael, in the city of
Oxford, for disobedience to an order of sessions, in not paying
a suns which they had been ordered to pay as the expenses of
an appeal. The case was tried at the last Oxf)rd Assizes,
and the defendants Haynes and Foster, the churchwardens,
were found guilty, and the other defendants Byron and
Walker, who were the overseers, were acquitted.
Mr. WnATELy, on behalf of the two first defendants,
now applied for a rule nisi to enter a verdict
for the defendants or in arrest of judgment. The circum-
stances of the case were these. Several of the new buildings
of the Colleges in Oxford had been rated to the poor, and an
attempt had Leon made to rate the old foundations of Jesus
College and of Exeter College. A rate had been made and
an appeal entered against it, on the ground that the parish
officers had omitted to rate these ancient foundations. The
College authorities refused to interfere—the parish of.
ficers did not defend the rate, and when the appeal
came on for hearing, it had been disposed of by the Sessions
as, in fact, an undefended cause ; and the Recorder of Ox
ford, to the astonishment, he believed, of every one present,
had ordered the parish officers of St. Michael to pay 3041.
BS., as the costs of this undefended appeal. They had re-
fused to pay this sum, and this indictment was in conse-
quence preferred against them. He applied for the rule on the
L round—first, that the Recorder had no jurisdiction whatever
in the case, inasmuch as the rate was assessed under a local
Act, and that as by that local Act the guardians of the poor
were the persons to whom the rate was paid, the defendants
had in fact no funds out of which to pay the costs. The
Learned Counsel was proceeding with his argument when he
was interrupted by
Lord DENMAN, who said that as there were many points
of law which would arise for consideration in the case, it had
better go into the Crown paper for argument.

WORTIDNOTON, ADMINISTRATOR OF-DUNCAN DECEASED, V.

GEDISDITCH, M.P.
This was an action for money lent and interest thereon,
which had been tried before Mr. Justice Williams at Chester,
and in which a verdict passed for the plaintiff for 1,2081. 10s.
Mr. Ev.tNs now moved for a rule nisi to enter a verdict for
defendant on the third plea, the statute of limitations. The
defendant, it appeared, had in 1810, 1813, and 1816, borrowed
of the Misses Duncan, the last of whom died in 1842, various
sums of money in bond. There were various accounts of
pecuniary transactions between the parties, but these ac-
counts ceased in 1823, but there was au account put in, dated
1824, in the defendant's handwriting, stating that he had
paid half a year's rent for the Misses. Duncan, up to 1825.
The rent was annually 17/. less than the sum the defendant
owed for interest, and to tako the ease out of the sta-
tute, the steward of the landlord under whom the
Misse3 Duncan held was called to prove that the defendant
had regularly paid the rent for the Misses Duncan up to the
time of the decease of the survivor of the sisters. He con-
tended that the evidence was not sufficient to take time
case out of the statute of limitations, and submitted that he
was therefore entitled to his rule.
Lord DEN MAN—Take a rule.

BAIL COURT,-(THIS DAY),
(Before Mr. Justice WifarrmAN.)

THE QUEEN V. THE HULL AND SELBY RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an application, made by Mr. Watson, to compel
the Hull and Selby Railway Company to pay over a sum of
2,5001. to the Company of Proprietors of a bridge, called the
Selby Bridge. The facts elicired were these :—that the bridge
in question was erected in 1791 under an Act of Parliament ;
that in 1836 an Act was passed for making and maintaining
the Hull and Selby Railway ; and in that Act it was enacted
that should loss accrue to the Bridge Company from the work-
ing of the railway, then such loss should be made good to the
Bridge Company by the payment on the part of the Railway
Company of a sum of money, equal to ten years' purchase of
the ascertained decrease of the Bridge tolls, provided such
sum should not exceed 2,5001. The affidavits filed stated
that the decrease in the Bridge tolls very far exceeded that
sum, and, therefore, the present application was made. The
Court granted the rule asked fbr.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

ININKLEY V. ASH.

This action was brought to recover the sum of 10/., the
amount of a quarter's rent, for a house occupied by the de-
fendant, a beer-shop keeper, in Byer-lane. The defence set
up was that the defendant's son was the real tenant, but this
being disproved in evidence, the Jury gave a verdict for the
plaintiff.

MORGAN V. CUMBERLAND.

In this case (which we believe was to recover compensa-
tion in damages for injuries which the plaintiff alleged he had
sustained from certain slanderous expressions uttered by the
defendant), Mr. JAMES said the parties had consented to a
verdict of 40s. being entered for the plaintiff.

CLERKENWELL (THIS DAY.)
A dravman, named Cousins, in the employment of Messrs.
Reid, the brewers, and residing on Saffron-hill, was charged
with assaulting his wife and two police -constables.
It appeared, from the evidence, that police. constable Mar-
tin, 144 G, being on duty on Saffron-hill, between five and
six this morning, heard cries of "murder" proceed from a
house there, and, on reaching the landing on the first-floor,
saw the wife standing in her night garments on the stairs,
and screaming violently. The prisoner, on hearing witness,
rushed out, brandishing a fire-shovel, with which he aimed a
terrible blow at the officer's head. The constable elevated
his arm to ward off the blow, and the weapon descended upon
it with such force that the handle was broken in two places.
He then ran into his room and Martin shouted for assistance,
his arm having been rendered almost powerless. Jackman,
192 G, then came in, and, upon entering the room, the pri-
soner lifted a chair, and, with a blow, broke it on Jackman's
shoulder. He was finally secured but not without very great
difficulty.

The Prisoner's wife and the landlord of the house described
the prisoner's conduct as extremely ♦iolent. He destroyed
a great deal of furniture.
The prisoner with an air of great indifference, said he bad
been out drinking all night, and did not doubt but that what
the police stated was true enough.
The MAGISTRATE sentenced him to seven days' imp ison-
ment in the House of Correction. When he came out be
must be bound over to keep the peace towards his wife.
Prisoner—There is no necessity for that; I will never live
with her again.

The 3fAc—isTEATE hoped the Messrs. Reid would be ap-
prised of the nature- of the charge against the prisoner.
Inspector Penny promised to acquaint them.
The prisoner was locked up.

UNION HALL.---(THIS DAY.)
'Thomas WaHand, described as a begging-letter writer, was
charged with the following heartless robbery :
The prisoner has been fa- some time known as a professed
begging-letter writer by the officers of the Mendicity Society,
and in that capacity had introduced himself to the com-
plainant, an infirm ofd man, who was allowed Bs. a week for
his support from some members of his family. The old man
having some arrears due, employed the prisoner, being a man
of "good address," to go and receive the money. Yesterday
the prisoner proceeded for the cash, all of which he converted
to his own purposes, and " rigged" himself out in a new suit
of clothes, in which he appeared at the bar.
Mr. COTTINGHAM characterised the conduct of the prisoner
as base in tile extreme to an aged man like the complainant.
The Magistrate added that he should deal summarily with
the case to prevent the complainant the trouble of attending
the sessions to prosecute, and commit the prisoner for two
months to hard labour; and at the same time Mr. Cotting-
ham directed that the prisoner should be divested of the new
suit of clothes, which were to be given up to the complain-
ant, as they were purchased with his money.

THE WILLS FORGERIES.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.

Shortly after ten o'clock Mr. Justice Williams took his seat
on the bench, when the prisoners William Barber, Joshua
Fletcher, William Saundirs, Lydia Saunders, and deorgiana
Dorey, were placed at the bar.

ACthe instance of the Court, the witness Christmas was
called, and re-examined--In the autumn of 1842 I told
Fletcher that. there were unclaimed dividends on 3,500/.
standing in the name of Slack. I did not mention it to any
body else.
The witness Wheeler was also recalled, at the request of
Mr. Wilkins, and said, that the prisoner Fletcher kept €1
account at the Bank of England, from 1839 up to the time of
his apprehension.

Mr. JAMES, Counsel for Mrs. Dorey, said, that Mrs. Dorey
now wished to withdraw her plea of Not Guilty, and to plead
Guilty. PerhapC he was not exceeding his duty, in asking
the jury to recommend her to mercy.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said he could not interfere with the
jury. He was sure they would do what was right, and that
the verdict in the first case would not influence them.
The plea of Not Guilty was then withdrawn on the part'of
Mrs. Dorey, and a plea of Guilty was entered.
Mr. GREAVES then rose to address the Court on behalf of
Fletcher. He contended that, in point of law, there was no
proof of any joint acts here, and that his client ought to
have a verdict of not guilty on this ground. The Learned
Gentleman quoted the case of the King v. Messingham in
proof of his position. Where there were separate acts they
must be proved separately, and a joint procurement must be
proved where there was a joint charge,
Mr. BALLAMTINE followed on the same side.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS could not stop the case. The pleading
guilty of one of the prisoners did not vary the ease. It
seemed to him that the argument came to this, that unless
the whole of the parties were present at the uttering of the
forged will. there could be no procurement or incitement,
Mr. STONE said he did not think there was any evidence
against the prisoner Saunders to go to the Jury.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said he was of opinion there was
some evidence for the jury.
Mr. WILKINS then addressed the jury on behalf of Barber.
He said, it appeared to him from the state of the Court, that
the interest in this case was unabated. After passing a com-
pliment to the jury for the attention which they devoted to
this most important case, and to the ability and skill of the
Learned Gentlemen who prosecuted in this case, he said that
he asked for nothing for his client but justice. He was
thoroughly convinced of the innocence of his client, and he
therefore did not appeal to their mercy. He was glad, for
the sake of Mr. Barber, that his Lordship refused the appli-
cation made on behalf of the other prisoner, for if it were
granted it would delay the time at which his client was to
be restored, if not to his former station and position, at least
to the smile of friendship. His Learned Friend had stated
this case with great fairness, and he trusted he would con-
tinue to conduct it to the end in the same way. Th:i-e Were
six counts in the indictment,which must fall to the ground
as far as his client was concerned. Ho had been charged
with forging the will, but not a tittle i f evidence was ad-
duced to establish that fact. If Mr. Barber had been guilty
of an immoral offence he ought to be punshed, but if he
did nothing inconsistent with his dutyAs an honest attorney,
he was sure the jury would ngt hesitate in acquitting him.
His Learned Friend, clad tOld them how unclaimed dividends
were to be transferred, but he did not say how difficult it
was to have this effected jthat each case 4f1,5 tce stricq
, ? •-•• ...