The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-30 00:00:00

(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

Motion made, and Question put, " That a sum, net exceeding
3,2401., he granted to her Majesty, towards the Expenses of the Ea.
clestastical Commissioners for England, to the 31st day of March,
1840." The Committee divided:—

MAJORITY-AYES, 61.
Acland, Air T. D. Fitzroy Henry •Nicholl. John
Acton, Colonel Flower, Sir James Parker, John
Baring, F. T. Fremantle, Sir T. Peel, Sir R.
Barrington, Viscount Gsskell, J. M. Peel, Jonathan
Boldero, H. G. Glacistone,raptain Plumptre, J. P.
Bowles, Admiral Godson, Richard Protheroe, Edward
Boyd. John Gordon, Captain Scott, Francis
Broadwood, Henry Goulburn, Henry Sheridan, R. B.
Bruce, Lord E. Graham, Sir J. Smith, T. B. C.
Cardwell, Edward Grogan, Edward Spooner, Richard
Clayton, B. R. Hamilton, W. J. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Clerk, Sir George Henley, J. W. Stuart, Henry
Clifton, J. T. Herbert, Sidney Sutton, H. M.
Cockburn, Sir G. Hotham, Lord Tollemache, John
Copeland, Alderman Houldsworth, T. Trench, Sir F. W.
Corry, Henry Liddell, 11. T. Trevor, G. R.
Cripps, William Lincoln, Earl Wellesley, Lord C.
Davies, D. A. S. Mackenzie, W. F.
Deedes,.W. Mackinnon, W. J. TICLLERS.
Denison, E. B. M`Neill, Duncan Baring, Henry
Dickinsoa, F. H. Martin, C. W. Lennox, Lord A.
Egerton, Sir P. Masterman, Jahn

MINORITY-NOES, 19.
Anson, Colonel Hawes, B. Villiers, Charles
Rrotherton, J. Hindley, Charles Warburton, H.
Collett, John Martin, John Wawn, John T.
Crawford, W. S. :Morris, David
Duncan, George Muntz, G. F.
Duncannon, Lord Redinirtou, T. ti.
Ferguson, Sir R. Ricardo, J. L.
Gibson, T. M. Somerville, Sir W.

tioned to her relatives was merely a cover stb enable him
to carry on his intimacy with her.
The CHIEF BARON, in summing up, thought the ex-
planation of the affair on the part of the defendant but a
poor excuse for his conduct, and said he thought the
plaintiff was entitled to damages, but that Lnder all the
circumstances they ought to be moderate.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 101.

SHERIFFS' COURT, June 28.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Commissioner
BuLLocK.)
WILBEE V. ASHMEAD.

`6 A SCENE IN COURT."—SLANDEROUS DEFENCE.—
The plaintiff in this action is the landlord of the Three
Tuns, Moor-street, Seven-dials ; the defendant is a hatter
in Davies-street, Berkeley-square. The action was
brought to recover the sum of 71. 12s. 2d., for wine,
&c., supplied, and money lent.
Mr. PEARSON—For plaintiff, stated the case. On the
24th of March the defendant went to the plaintiff's
house with some friends, and had dinner and wine for
self and friends, and the bill amounted to 21. 10s. Two
or three days afterwards he was again at plaintiff's
house, and borrowed 71. He now pleaded the statute
against tippling, although it was for wine, steaks,
chops, &c., &e., and that the 71. lent was for gaming
in plaintiff's house. The defendant's Counsel would en-
deavour to prove that he had been fraudulently induced to
drink the plaintiff's wine, smoke his cigars, and borrow
his money. He, the Learned Counsel, would be able to
prove that the transaction on the part of the plaintiff
was of the most upright character, and that there was
not the slightest ground for any one of the pleas.
The plaintiff's waiter proved that the defendant went
to the house on the 24th of March last. He was a
stranger, but brother to a person who put up at the
house. At night, when he was asked for the money, he
said it must be put down to him, and he would call again.
He was trusted on account of his connexions.

Mr. Edward Jackson proved that defendant signed an
I 0 U for money borrowed. Defendant was not drunk.
He appeared but very little damaged by what he had
drunk.

Mr. DOUSE said that the defence was not a dishonest
one, but one brought forward by the defendant's friends,
in the performance of a duty they owed to society. The
defendant's house was a house open to prostitutes and
gamblers, and the plaintiff was a panderer to the follies
and extravagance of youth. The defendant was a young
man, and only twenty-two years of age, and having been
a very steady young man, was set up in business by his
friends. Unfortunately his brother, who was a different
character, lodged at plaintiff's, and defendant was unfor-
tunately induced to visit, and there he fell in with gam-
blers, and played at unlawful games with plaintiff himself,
who induced him, whilst in a state of intoxication, to give
the I 0 U. He, therefore, called upon the jury as parents
and friends, by their verdict, to protect the unwary.
John Wills, a carpenter of Arlington-street, Camden-
town, was called—He could not identify the defendant
as being at the house, He saw a game at billiards played,
and plaintiff said it was for 10s. a game. Witness and a
friend then played and the plaintiff and others went to
bagatelle. He saw no card playing, and that was the
only time he was in the house.
Mr. DOUSE said he was deceived in the evidence the
witness could give.
Joseph Ashmead, brother to defendant—Was in the
habit of lodging at plaintiff's. Whist and cribbage was
played on the night in question at 15s, a game, and his
brother was drunk when he signed the note.
The cross-examination of witness elicited such impro-
babilities that the counsel for plaintiff would not address
the jury in reply.
The LEARNED COMMISSIONER without summing up
asked if they were satisfied.
The jury, with great excitement, exclaimed, " All,
all," " unanimously, a verdict for the plaintiff, we don't
believe the defence, and we believe the plaintiff to be a
very respectable man."
The plaintiff's counsel said an action should be
brought against defendant for the scandal of that day.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
MARYLEBOANE.

Mr. John Fiddes, who described himself as a gentle-
man, residing at No. 4, St. Anne's Villas, St. John's
Wood, was brought up in custody, and placed at the
bar, charged with the following robbery. The prisoner
is the husband of Miss H. Cawse, the well-known
vocalist.

Thomas Maughen, clerk to Messrs. Osborne and Co.,
No. 22, St. James's-street, silversmith, deposed that on
the previous evening, about six o'clock, the prisoner en-
tered the shop, and presented a note, at the same time
asking if the sum alluded to therein had been sent. The
note, which had been written by Mr. Osborne, sen., was
here handed to the Magistrate. It was addressed to Mrs.
Fiddes, No. 26, Manchester-street, Manchester-square,
and ran thus :

TELLEns.
Williams, William
Bowring, Dr.

L AW INTELLIGENCE.
BAIL COURT June 28.
(Sittings in Banco. )
Lurd Denman, Mr. Justice Coleridge, and Mr. Justice Wil-
liams were the presiding judges.

COOPER r. HARDING AND SMITH.

This was a motion on the part of the defendants for a non
suit on a verdict for the defendants, on several grounds.
The short facts of the case are these :—Messrs. Harding and
Smith, the defendants, are solicitors, at Birmingham, and be-
came agent to the assignees of a bankrupt, named Goold, an
ironmonger at Stafford. The assignees were in litigation with
the plaintiff, Cooper, their former solicitor, in respect to some
trusts. The matter had been the subject of a suit in Chancery,
hut thinking the suit would be brought to a more speedy ter-
miati,n, it was taken before Mr. Daniels, Commissioner of
Bankruptcy. The defendants being desirous of Mr. Cooper's
appearance before the Commissioner, served him with a sum-
mons to attend before the Court, but Mr. Cooper, when the sum-
mons was tendered to him, refused to attend, unless his expenses
were paid as a witness. The defendants then applied to the
Commissioner for a warrant to compel his attendance, who
observed that if they had not done what was right regarding
the summons, they were not entitled to a warrant, owing to
the expenses not having been tendered; but upon being pressed
the Commissioner said, that at their awn peril, and upon their
own responsibility, he would grant the warrant. The warrant
was accordingly taken out. grant the warrant. The warrant
was accordiogly taken out. Baddam, the officer of the Court,
rut it into execution, and Mr. Cooper was brought in custody
before the Court. Mr. Cooper brought an action against the
.t Pendants for false imprisonm: nt, which was tried before Lord
Denman, and a verdict was had against them. Thereupon the
present proceedings ensued. Counsel for the plaintiff prayed
that the rule might be d seharged.
The defendant's plea was, first, that the plaintiff was sus-
pecte by Mr. Commissioner Daniels ; and secondly, that he
was generally suspected for the act, and says that a witness is
not bound to attend unless his expenses are paid, but in the case
,of suspected persons, postpones the question of expenses until
the suspected person be examined. The summons, however,
elid not set forth any such suspicion, and the jury by their
verdict recognised the fact that the Commissioners did not
regard Mr. D. Cooper as a suspected person. The summons
merely set forth that the solicitors for the assignees believed
31r. Cooper to be a person who could give useful information
in the case, but tee warrant recited that he was a person sus-
Dected to be in possession of some of the bankrupts' goods.
. -
Their Lordships took time to consider their judgment.

" Mr. Osborne will thank Mrs. Fiddes to send him a
line whether he will do right in sending a money order.
It will be directed, June 17, 1845. No. 22, St. James's-
stvet."

Mr. LONG (to witness) : Now state all that took place.
—Witne,s took the note to Mr. Osborne, who after
perusing it, said he knew nothing about it. Witness
then gave that information to the prisoner, delivering
him back his note ; and soon after his departure witness
discovered that six silver forks had been abstracted from
the counter. He looked out of doors as speedily as pos-
sible, but could not discern the prisoner. He after-
wards, from information received, went to No. 26, Ben-
tinck-street, and there found that the prisoner was liv-
ing at St. Anne's Villas, where he was, the same night,
taken into custody.
Prisoner —I am, as described, a gentleman, and living
with my father in Great St. llelen's. I was at the house
on the day in question, but knew nothing of the
robbery.
Mr. LONG decided on remanding him till next Satur-
day ; but, at the solicitation of his friends, consented to
take bail for his appearance on that occasion—himself
in 5001., and two sureties in 2501. each.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 28.
(Ikfore Lord Chief Justice TINDAL )
HOLCROYT V. NOGGINS AND OTHERS.
Mr. Serjeant Murphy, Mr. Serjeant Dowling, and Mr.
Ileggins appeared as counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Serjeant Talfourd and Mr. Lush for the defendants.
This was an action brought by Mr. Holcruft to re-
. cover from the defendants, as registered proprietors of
the Newcastle Advertiser, 1051. for a year's services in
supplying leading articles to that publication. It was in
June, 1844, that the plaintiff first wrote for this paper,
b,ing engaged by a Mr. Lowkin as agent for the de-
fe.adants, and some months afterwards a contract was
entered into with the plaintiff to write such articles from
November to November next. It was, however, shown
tiiat the real contract was from Christmas, 1844, fur a
y,iar. The defendants remained registered proprietors
at the Stamp-office, and their names appeared as such at
the end of each number of the Newcastle Advertiser,
down to the present time. It was, therefore, contended
that there could be no doubt the contract was made on
behalf of the defendants, and that they were liable in the
present action.
Evidence having been given of these facts, witnesses
IN ere about to be called to prove the custom on other
rapers, but the Learned Judge doubted the relevancy of
such testimony, and it was not continued.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, in addressing the jury, said
that the case on the part of the defence was, that the de-
fendants were not responsible in this action. They had
allowed their names to remain entered at the Stamp-
office as proprietors of the Newcastle (formerly the
Great Northern) Advertiser, long after they had ceased
to have any connexion therewith. In October, 1843,
the defendants assigned the paper by a bill of sale by
way of mortgage to a Mr. Netham ; and in the begin-
ning of June last the defendants sold the paper to Mr.
Lowkin, who thus became the whole and sole proprietor
of the Newcastle Advertiser. The deeds of assignment
and sale, &c., were put in to prove these facts, and Mr.
Lowkin gave evidence to establish his own sole responsi-
bility for the payment of the plaintiff, and to show that
the plaintiff had regarded him in that light.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY, in his :reply, contended
that the defendants' case was an attempt to shift the
responsibility from the real proprietors to one who
really was not liable, but who had engaged the plaintiff
merely as agent for the defendants.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up, the jary
retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence
of half an hour, returned into court with one for the
defendants.
The Learned JUDGE reserved forlthe opinion of the
Court above the question, whether the statute did not
constitute an estoppel to the defendants' denying they
wereroti proprietors as their names were registered at the
P-office as such, and whether such circumstance
was not to be taken as conclusive evidence of their being
really proprietors of the paper in question.

COURT OF ExCHEQUER, June 28.
BRADFORD v. STONEHEWER.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF
RottlAßE. ints was an
action for a breach of promise marriage brought by
the plaintiff, a young female, against the defendant, who
was a widower.
It appeared that shortly before last Christmas, the
plaintiff, with her sister and her aunts, went to
cricket match at Wimbledon, where she resides, and
the evening the party paid a visit to the Plough Tavern,
in that place, where they met the defendant. The result
of the meeting was an intimacy between the parties, and
he defendant begged to be permitted to visit the plain-
tiff as her suitor. This was acceded to, and be frequently
*isited her in that capacity. In some short time afterwards
.the plaintiff became pregnant, and it was al:eaed that
she was so because of her acquaintance with the de-
fendant, which,, however, he denied. It was at the same
time given innvp bat he frequently expressed his
determination • intir di-Via:l6ff, and as he refused to
carry out his s .;:. • ibisitospect, the present action
was brought. . A
Mr. &LYLE'', on4be part Oritte defendant, denied that
there had ever been any promise of marriage of the
plain= and his speaking an the tubject in the way men-

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING. JUNE so, 1845