The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-15 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY).

The Judges, who had, according to, custom, breakfasted
with the Lord Chancellor, did not take their seats upon the
bench until a quarter before Oro-o'clock. •

THE QUEEN V. TENDELL.-QUO WARRANTO.

Mr. KELLY move:l for a rule nisi for a quo warranto, call-
ing upon George Tendell, to show by what right he claimed
to exercise the rights of a capital burgess of the borough of
Ilchester. A rule had been applied for last term, and he be-
lieved it had been discharged on the ground that the relator
had concurred in Mr. Tindell's election. The present relator
was not in that situation. The ground on which the rule was
applied for was that Mr. Tendell was not an inhabitant of the
borough.
Lord DExmArt—The rule which was applied for last term
is still pending.
Mr. WATsox—l was in the case, my Lord, and it was en-
larged the last day of term.
' Mr. KELLY hoped the present rule would be granted.
Lord DENnAN—Certainly not. We will take a note of
your application, but we cannot grant two rules for the sam•
cause.—Application refused.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY.

(Sittings in Banco.)
The Judges did not take theirseats on the bench till shortly
before two o'clock.

The Court was thronged to a degree mnch greater than is
usual even on the days which mark the commencement of
each term ; a small portion of the throng consisted of
fashionably-dressed ladies.
There seemed to be a very general expectation that
Sir F. Pollock would take his seat on the Bench as Chief
Baron ; and when the Learned Judges entered the Court
unaccompanied by the Learned Gentleman, the general
feeling of disappointment on the part of the sight-seers was
very evident.

Their Lordships immediately proceeded to dispose of mo-
tions.

PERRDT V DAVENPORT.

This was an action against the Sheriff of Chester for not ar-
resting a person named Buckfield, against whom
judgment had been obtained. A verdict had been obtained
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Jervis now moved for a new rule to
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a
verdict entered for the defendant. One of the grounds relied
on for the application was, that the writ had not been deli-
vered to the defendant within the due term prescribed by law
Baron PARxE—Take a rule to show cause.
There were some other motions disposed of, but they were
not of an interesting nature.

THE WILLS FORGERIES.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS 'DAY.)

OLD COURT.

CONTINUATION OF THE TRIAL OF BARBER,
FLETCHER, AND MRS. DOREY. -
The Learned Judges took their seats upon the bench at
ten o'clock, at which time the Court was densely crowded,
more particularly by ladies, most of whom were young and
elegantly attired, and who, if we could-judge from the levity
and apparent glee with which they rushed to their seats on
the bench and in other parts of the Court, seemed to con-
sider the awful position in which the three unfortunate pri-
soners were placed as a mere theatrical exhibition.
Mr. GREAVES, on behalf of Fletcher, said, before the
Learned Baron commenced his charge to the jury, he
wished to raise one point for their Lordships' consideration.
[At this moment Mrs. Dorey fainted, and was some time
before she regained consciousness.) Mr. Greaves then con-
tended that in point of fact, in this case, the administration
taken out, and the bond granted to the actual individual,
although under a false name (according to the law as it
stood, since the alteration, in the year 1761), were good.
Mr. Baron GURNEY then proceeded to charge the jury, and
said, that a most important point for their consideration
would be to reflect upon how far the evidence went to in-
clude the several prisoners, either as accessories or principals,
in the offence with which they were charged. (He went
through his notes at length, and read all the documents ad-
duced during the evidence, which have been already pub-
lished in The Sun, commenting upon the various points as he
proceeded.) With respect to a portion of the evidence con •
cerning Barber, he thought there was some which seemed to
tell in his favour, and one very important point for the jury
to consider was the evidence relating to the age of Jane
Stewart ; for if she was only 40 or 50 years of age, she could
not be so decrepid a person as the one seen at the office of
Barber. It would be also important to remark, that when
he was applied to with respect to the payment of 31.35. 9d., he
at once gave the right address of the prisoner Stewart ; and
certainly this did not appear very much like an anxiety to
keep the parties with whom he was connected a secret.
Another point for the jury to consider was, that Barber, al-
though a professional man, gave the name of Peckham, al-
though he had given his residence in Nelson-square. A fact
which -had been urged strongly in his favour was, that
Hyatt's visit occurred in October instead of June. This was
a matter for the most serious consideration of the jury, for
the bond had been executed before the latter period. They
should be very careful not to allow the confession of Mrs.
Dorey to operate on their minds, because the part taken by
her in this case was open to strong censure, as she must
have known that Fletcher required her agency to procure
money
bweahircihngswasofntohteh
wi s
hoowl
en .
case, They
an
ands should
tlho
eo kpcaar
particular
Barber was a professional man, and although, according to
ostnihteieyon,s of each of the parties. They should recollect that
the evidence of Hyatt, he had given the name of Clarence
Peckham, yet he gave his right address. Griffin stated in his
evidence that Barber had been present in the office of Pott
till the business was completed, and that he also had been
present at the Bank; but it was also stated that he was pre-
sent there in his professional capacity as an attorney. They
should also remember that although a large sum of money
was obtained, the sum allotted to him did not exceed
the ordinary professional remuneration which was given in
such cases. There could be no doubt but that Fletcher had
taken a conspicuous part in all those nefarious transactions,
more especially when they reflected upon the circumstances
stated by Mr. Christmas, whom he had corrupted. He
(Baron Gurney) thought it was clear, also, that the prisoner
Dorey had taken an active part in those proceedings—more
so when they found her statement confirmed by that of
Griffin. With these observations, he would remit the jury to
the consideration of their verdict.

The jury retired, and after an absence of about ten mi-
nutes returned into Court with a verdict of Acquittal in the
case of Barber, and of Guilty against Fletcher and Dorey.
Mr. Barber stood in the dock during the greater part of
the time the Learned Judge was delivering his charge, but
when the verdict of " Not Guilty"' was returned, and several
friends hurried to the bar to shake him by the hand, he put
his hand to his face, and leant down upon the dock, app.
rently much affected. Mrs. Dorey again fainted upon hear-
ing the verdict, and was carried out of the dock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

UNION HALL.-(THIS DAY.)
A young married woman named Roberts, with an infant
in her arms, was charged with stealing a piece of beef weigh-
ing 101bs., belonging to a butcher in the Kent-road.
The complainant stated that on Saturday night the
prisoner came into his shop, which was crowded at the tine,
and, in the confusion of business, was observed to snatch up
the piece of beef, and, placing it under her shawl, walked
out, and when stopped, she dropped the meat on the pave-
ment. The butcher added that he would not have pressed
the charge if he had not discovered that the woman was not
in want, she having a large joint of pork at home at the time
of the robbery. It was further stated that the prisoner's
husband was in good circumstances, and that he allowed his
wife a sufficiency to provide the necessary provisions for the
family.
The prisoner endeavoured to induce a belief, that the meat
(10 lbs.) had adhered to her dress without her knowledge.
Mr. TRAIL said that it was obvious the theft was not com-
mitted by a person who was reduced by distress, but by one
who did it probably to obtain liquor, it being stated, that she
was addicted to that propensity. It was such a case as
should go before a jury, and as a material witness was not
present, he should therefore, remand her.

QUEEN-SQUARE.-(THIS DAY.)
Thomas Gates was charged with riding a horse at a furious
rate along York-street, 'yesterday, between twelve and one
o'clock. The horse had no bridle, and many pehons were
placed in considerable danger by the recklessness of the de-
fendant. He was fined 205., or in default to be committed
for one month.

- I
The horse, which is .the property of a person living at
Kingston, Surrey, was detained until claimed, and the fine paid.
A respectably dressed youth, named" John Morse, was
charged by 147 B with tossing halfpence on Sunday morning,
with other lads.
The mother and grandmother of the lad stepped forward
and expressed their regret at the youth's misconduct, stating
that if the Magistrate would look over this, his first offence,
they would take care that such misconduct was not repeated.
Mr. PAINTER severely reprimanded the youth, and said
that he should have felt it his duty to have inflicted a larger
penalty had he not received a good character from the de-
fendant's mother and grandmother. He should, under those
circumstances, only inflict a fine of three shillings.
Two labouring men, named Herbert and Howard, natives
of the " Emerald Isle," were charged with creating a dis-
turbance, and assaulting the police.
From the statement of several constables, it appeared that
the defendants conducted themselves in an exceedingly vio-
lent manner, and, when requested to go away without
creating any further disturbance, they assaulted police-
constable 115 A knocked him down, tore his clothes,
and split his truncheon, which he was obliged to draW in self-
defence. He sprang his rattle, and five constables came to
his assistance, and had the greatest difficulty in taking the
defendants into custody. They were both drunk, or, to use
the expressive words of one of the policemen, " they seemed
quite mad altogether." Herbert was further charged with
striking a policeman at the station-house.
The defendants, in answer to the charge, said, that they
had been seriously assaulted by the police, but adMitted that
they were drunk.
Herbert was fined 11. 70. 6d., or one month's imprisonment,
Howard, 1/. 55., or three,weeks' imprisonment.