The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-27 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Feb. 26.

(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour took motions to-day, and was occupied the
greater portion of the morning with one relative to an
article of dress called antigropelos, or mud-boots. The
matter has been several times before the Court, and it
is unnecessary further to advert to it.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 26.
Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord Drzr3tAx and a Special

Jury.)
THE CUSTOM-HbUSE FRAUDS.

THE QUEEN, ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE COMMISSIONERS
OF CUSTOMS, P. PETER WILLIAMS, CHARLES MOTTRAM, AND
JOHN HORSLEY.
This was an indictment arising out of the late frauds upon
the Crown through the Custom-house- revenues, to the extent
of about half a million of money, with the history of which,
almost in minute detail, the public are already familiarly
acquainted. The bill of indictment was found at the last
June sessions of the Central Criminal Court, and removed
by certiorari at the instance of the Commissioners of Cus-
toms.

The Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Thesiger
(Queen's Counsel), and Mr. Pollock, were for the prosecu-
tion ; Mr. Cockburn (Queen's Counsel), and Mr. Clarkson ap-
peared for the defendant Mottram.
The brief summary of the case is, that the defendants were
carrying on business in partnership in the way of French
goods and the like, and in the month of September,
1840, by conspiracy, &c., carried through the Custom-
house, goods to the amount of 5801. or thereabouts, pay-
ing only 401., instead of 881., thereby defrauding the revenue
of (the difference. The defendant Williams had pleaded
guilty, Horsley had not been taken or appeared at all, and
Mottram said that he knew nothing about it. 111ottram had
been a linendraper in an extensive way of business in
Lamb's Conduit-street, and in Janvary, 1840, relinquished
that business, and went into partnership with the other de-
fendants in Wood-street, Cheapside, as Manchester and silk
warehousemen and importers of " foreign fancy goods."
They became bankrupt, and there was a fiat, which produced
a great sensation, and the examination of Mettram was ad-
journed for three years. One Burnby, living then in Eus-
ton-square, of whom all the world has heard so much, and
who by his multifold and various devices in almost every
species of fraud had almost made fiction upon such
matters uninteresting, tempted the firm, and all would have
fallen but that the first attempt resulted in an abortion, as
the only mode of avoidance of manifest detection. Fraud
succeeded, however, time after time afterwards, but Mot-
tram, who alone now at the trial attempted a defence,
averred that he bad no knowledge of or connexion with
anything but the abortion, which would not support the
indictment. About all that supervened he was wholly inno-
cent and unconscious. In fact, he was so shocked at the
first attempt, or the failure of it, that though a partner in
the house, he never, as his counsel from instruction stated,
had the faintest knowledge of, or idea about, any of the
future transactions connected with the revenue duties. The
man Burnby, however, who appeared to have been dismissed
from the service of the Crown for sundry enormities, but
subsequently retained by the Crown at 15s. a day to de-
tect and prove the guilt of others, gave a very different ac-
count from that set up by Mr. Mortram, and quite proved
the sagacity of the counsel of setting a thief to catch a thief.
Mr. Cockburn freely called him " a perjured villain, covered
in his scoundrel infamy, who had had the barefaced effron-
tery to come into the Court and tell the jury that he was
kept by the Commissioners of Customs—fed by them on 15s.
a day—and retained like a wild beast, ready to pounce upon
any victim determined upon as being, in their caprice, to be
devoured."

Lord DENMAN summed up the caso, commenting with
some calm severity upon the bearing of the evidence in
proof of the guilty participation if the defendant Mottram,
though with deepest indignation at the conduct of the man
Burnby, whose evidence had been necessary to make out
the case.

The jury retired for about two hours, and returned with a
verdict of Guilty generally.
Sentence stood deferred without observation.

PREROGATIVE COURT.
(Before Sir H. JENXER FUST.)
COVENTRY V. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS.
In this case three codicils have been propounded, in a com-
mon codicil to the will of the late Lord Coventry, the vali-
dity of which was opposed on several grounds. The will
and other codicils have been already proved by the executors
named in it. At one period his Lordship suffered under in-
sanity, but the testamentary papers already proved were
made previously. The first codicil brought to the notice of
the Court was dated the 17th of September, 1836, but was
torn up by his Lordship while in a state of insanity. After
hearing Drs. Addams and Curteis in support of the paper so
torn (the fragments of which were picked up by the keeper),
and the Queen's Advocate contra, the Court had no doubt
that it was entitled to probate, and directed accordingly.
The next paper discussed is couched in the following
terms :

" Severn Bank, Worcester, Nov. 18, 1840.
" In consequence of a late introduction to Mrs. Chase, and
finding her talents and virtues were unrepaid, either by
her profession (to which she jean ornament) or by her hus-
band, who since that acquaintance has turned out a great
villain, having been proved to be already married at Port-
slade, near Brighton, to a Miss Everall, I have determined
to offer, as a tribute to her talents and virtues the follow-
ing small pittance, that poverty may never overtake her.
I shall immediately order Mr. Morland, who has made my
will, to make the following codicil to it :—That whereas
in consideration of my sincere affection for Fanny Maria
Brunton's irreproachable character, and her other virtues,
she shall enjoy from me the small but welcome allowance of
501. per annum, to be paid by Messr3. Coutts and Co.,
bankers, Strand, half-yearly, quarterly, or annually, as the
said Fanny Maria Brunton shall will it, and after her death
(wiaiCh I cannot contemplate Without feelioge of the deopest

ma°
regret) to her son, now born, Thomas Chase, but 'll egili
NOW'ince the horrid previous marriage has been pro4f,
Given under my hand and seal this 18th day of
in the year of our Lord, 1840.
(L.S) " COVENT°.
" Witnesses—THOMAS MARCHANT.
RICHARD CHAMBERS, M.D."
The codicil was enclosed in an envelope, endnrseu,
Miss Fanny Maria Brunton—Coventry." r
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE and Dr. Pruumtoas,
jam" lets
used the paper as not being a codicil to the will of Oie
Earl, but merely as a security that the testator would !se
larly execute a paper in her favour.
ti
Dr. Anniuts submitted that the paper had been prolLws.
as a codicil, and it was rather too late now to raise the 00,
Lion made on the other side. The paper was regularlY :031.
cuted and delivered to the lady, who placed it in her bs°,ol
There could be no doubt but that the deceased was °f. yo
mind at the period it was executed, though there 10100
question he subsequently became deranged, and centin,no.
till his death. As to the execution of the paper by to os
Earl, that was most fully established. The cases ,d 0
the other side did not bear on the points now rsl,,ee
against the validity of the paper under diecnsdion• ena
quirements of the new Will Act had been complied 'l'l irr
the Cuurt must pronounce for it as a provisional codict
ore
tended by the testator to 'operate in the absence of and To
formal instrument, as it would be hard indeed to derl"
lady] e
of her annuity.
COURT said it must consider if this paper wasco
d
or not. It was an important question. The other rAilut
were entitled to probate, the costs as to them to be ro-
of the estate.

JAMES V. COHEN.
This case respects the validity of certain testaellhl
papers of the late Mr. L. Cohen, who died on the „5t0004
March, 1842, leaving property of the value of about " opo
Among the relatives he left behind him were two niecnet tbs
of whom is the wife of the Bishop of Jerusalem. v.' 0
papers before the Court, the distribution of the propertir
• ued•
varied. The deceased destroyed his last will, and the lodi•
tion was, if this revived a will dated in 1832, and two ctio
cils, made in 1833 and in 1836, which had fora I°l the
been out of his possession. The case does not pose's-
lea public interest. ld tOt
The Court, after hearing civilians on both sides,. —I ill
there was no proof of the intention of the deceased to rear
the will of 1832, or the codicils of 1833 and 1836, 001.
fore an intestacy must be pronounced for. •

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
GUILDHALL. imals
Yesterday Mrs. Earnshaw, of Park-street, Caindell"ni"
and Miss Ammo Wells, who resided with her
were re-examined, charged with purloining various
from jewellers' shops. rfel
Mr. Clarkson, who attended for the prisoners, 0-secte,
that the officers were, at the last hearing, especially direithet
as con311.„0 .00
to ascertain if there were grounds for believing that_Lort
of the eight 5/. notes found in the possession of the pr—tooff
could be presumed to be the produce of ether goods loof
and sold or pawned by the prisoners. He wished to
if they had made those inquiries. He knew the accost
that Mrs. Earnshaw had received them in payment d the
allowance under her marriage settlement, and he truottfloa
magistrate would restore them to the lady. The offilrooiti
brought away some savings' bank books, containinewerto
to the amourt of 801. As he could not as clearly en° ti 6 be
the moneys paid in were not the produce that
was afraid he could not then make the same claimor
restoration. of stole* g,°°
d ni‘al
Mr. Alderman HuGzizs asked the officer if he bt,
inquiry about the notes ?—Wardle, the policemen, reP pi'
had, and that he could not trace that a 51. note had bee ow
to the prisoners in any case. He had traced only poo re is
ing, that of a locket, stolen from Mr. Lamb, 1131%! gel.
Cheapside, and pawned at Mr. Fleming's, in r
street.
Mr. Alderman HUGHES examined the notes, end
they were new, and seven of them of consecutive 11°'7,1"ti order
said he believed Mr. Clarkson's statement, and eb0.7,00 the
30/. to be given up. Lest anything should turn "read
notes, he must direct the officer to keep two of the no
take the numbers of those he gave up.
el h (f
To complete the case entered into at the first evosof, -
the stealing of a fruit knife from the shop of Mre•
Farringdon-street, aline°4
George Chambers, a station-house clerk, was ts! • a
and proved that he found the knife in an unstirred port
Miss Wells's boa. lie also found there a gold will:
which had not
an been owned.
pocket Ate
purposely bet°
Mr. Alderm CirAuas asked if a secret 1
.i
purposely formed in the boa. The officer said no. Att•
merely unripped. There was no sewing to form it,P„°tifeti,",
Mr. Shepherd, a watchmaker in the Strand;juf'" e ;1111"(
gold watch of the value of 30/. The prisoners cso:ro,
his shop three weeks ago, and Wells wished to flea 1 top '
watches in the window. He placed two trays before
at 0
they objected to the price, and wished to seo acme 000
guineas. Their appearance obtained his confidence 500 to
that he did not remove the trays before he turned I 11,
tip
reach the cheaper watches, and this was taken advancer ir
to steal the watch, which he did not miss till the
quired whether he had been d. he
Mr. Alderman HUGHES asked if it was possible that
could have sold the watch r (also
watch Shepherd said it was not. The number 0 olso
watch was entered in a stock-book, and the sale WI
entered. fool

Mr. Alderman HuGuns asked the officer 'rebore b•
the watch ? trb
Thomas Hollingsworth, a City policeman, stated o'B,ol
he was conveying the prisoners to the Compter,
the watch to Mr. Hughes, her landlord, of Park-ems
care, and witness immediately took possession of it' Of
A third charge was preferred by Mr. Hannafer"' tine
of
gent-street, a dressing-case maker. He had a recollecv ti,
seeing the elder prisoner about five years ago, but frior
he nor his partner had any recollection of seeing the pre
ers in his shop recently. The two gold peucil-cal
re 01
duced, value 8/. and 3/., were his property. TheY °eon tbi
out of three which were purchased from the maker
ate
Wells t, for
31st of January ; the larger one was missed ten days 11—
the smaller one had not been missed. cam
"'"
The officer said these were found, each in a sepias°
at the prisoners' lodging. cterf
Mr. Alderman HUGHES said it would be more 6 gat he
if his partner would attend the next examination,
might be certain that neither could identify the Pris°9:,,,elle!,
A fourth charge was preferred by Mr. empham, 6d tire"
in the Strand. He said the prisoners had been threa sr hie
to his shop within two months, and each time looked t rei°
rings. They did not purchase anything. nHe did I rbsir
anything, but he suspected them so much that
at rev
second and third visits he used such precautions toe
dered stealing undetected impossible, and he sent, corer
to watch them. They went into the jewellers at toe t with
of Villiers-street. He identified three finger-rings le
stones. sr'
IfOre he
Mr. Alderman Caucus asked how he knew thei Aed
sold ?—Mr. Clapham said they were very old stock,
could not have sold them without remarking the fact...mot'
A fifth charge was preferred by Mr. West, of butt
street, jeweller. He did not remember the prisoners, 0)
identified a gold brooch, value 2/. 10s., which had beer' II
from his stock, and was found at the prisoners' lodging.
missed it on the Ist of February.
A sixth charge was preferred by Messrs. Hitchcrril‘bbei'llecir
Rogers, St. Paul's Church-yard, of stealing a piece
f„bende4t;
value 55., on the afternoon the prisoners were aPPI,- th.r
They first looked at some boxes of dark ribbon, "iiytsii
wished to see some light ribbons • and while the e"to helc
was fetching the box, they took' the opportunit/
;'
themselves. They bought a small quantity. 00111
A seventh charge was preferred by hiMr. Lamb, °,lO- ree''
in Cheapside. He identified a gold locket, but h
fY lection of seeing the prisoners at his shop.
Mr. Alderman HUGHES said, as several articles
eh Weld b‘
0
unclaimed, it was desirable that the prisonersht
further remanded. f,
Mr. Clarkson said he could not oppose this. TI'S the PP.
to be the fullest inquiry, and he was willing that
t.
„ni
soners should at once stand remanded for a fortnifhnzer
Mr. Alderman HUGHES replied that this was a °.;0011',.14
of remand than he should have proposed, but if it,. if Ow
more convenient than an intermediate examination,
with their own consent, remand them for a fortnight'
The prisoners were removed.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENI'
HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. Z6' auto
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual' "-AO°
On the motion of Sir T. FREMANTLZ the Sr,!ii. the
directed his warrant to issue for a new' writ.'ooo/111
election ofa Member for Londonderry in the r°°
Bateson, Esq., deceased. tv"
MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAIL " the
Mr. HARDY moved the second readinVf
Manchester and Leeds Railway (Bury brave
Mr. T. EGERTON took the oortuni.tY,nonle,
marking on the want of formality in referri°,lo ;ITN
of those branch Railway Bills to the York r4-114n,"
Committee, and others to the Leeds Railway
`l°- I
tee. nrdere°
The Bill was then read a second time, and
to be committed. vorDP'
SUPPLY—GRIEVANCES OF THE
Mr. W. WILLIAMS (in continuation fr°;or:,
Third Edition of last night) proceeded tc,d tai`h
The Right Honourable Baronet opposite iasori be
he was obliged to support this enormous arm, oainl)
count of the state of Ireland, but he (Mr. s 1 0,,,r°1:
contended that the necessity for doing his
solely from the policy pursued by the liilrtea
Gentleman towards the country. • It was rr how'
vote 34,000 men for the navy this year. e sdais r„gie.
like to know how was such a large force ri"
quired now, when in 1822 the naval force con,ooo
only 21,000 men, namely, 13,000 seamen, slld 180'
marines? In the years, 1832, 1833,1834, 411 Ther
only 27,000 men were voted for this service. wish'''._A°
was another important question to which 1)01 0.0 0
to direct the attention of the House, and given,
matter upon which the Admiralty had nefernct thtly
any satisfactory information to the House' f°r
was the large amount' of the naval pension, ..6r toP
the amount of these pensions was more this les tber
it was in the year 1818, after the VW, wilierioff, en"
were a great number of officers pension the
when it was likely to have more upon
tr: nir
than at any other period, owin
merous casualties incident to the wAr. ytet°
should wish the Right Hon. .Baronet °in the;
why there had been so great an increas!
ed or
pensions to naval officers. He complalll. had
the manner in which the naval estimat"„litio,
been made out. The army estimates were the
but such was not the case with resPeckte pen'
navy. Now, what was the amount of tu,. pool
sions given to the widows and children eleoion.
to D. 09
officers ? In 1818 the whole amount ef. PlO2 it
given to those individuals was 18,8001.; in 0,001,
was 112,000/, while this year it was 2 e 1103
Now, he should like to know why this vast incresseiod
taken place. When they compared the amount reldren,
by the naval officers, and their widows and chlfooght
with the amount given to sailors, the men whot cd the
their battles, what did they get? WhY, `;''‘rso ~Ait
1,100,0001., they got about 207,0001. ' v-
uld
to be supposed that these men 1".-1.00.•
satisfied, and not consider themselves 11._il de.
He would next advert to the pensions in the el;edtic
pertinent of the Admiralty. After the 10t of Fel
tion of the war establishment, the amount
bia
sions in this department was 99,600/, t
Ale
it came to no less a sum than 162,00011 n
double what it Nies at the close of the witfr:i. tfult
wanted to know what circumstances called 14 for t
extra expenditure. Tim there WOO