The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-27 00:00:00

FEBCITSON V. CHAMBERS AND WIFE.

more restored to liberty. He was, however, again
arrested by another party, and, having settled the de-
=land of that party, he was now unable to obtain his
discharge because the Marshal persisted in keeping him
iin custody, on the ground of the plaintiff's suit. I; was
.agm submitted that, having already been in custody on
tltis particular writ, the judgment was fully satisfied,
and he was, therefore entitled to his discha"ge.
The COURT granted the rule.
The Court then took the new trial paper, but no case
of interest came on.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, May 25.
IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM LANGLEY GRACE.
This insolvent, who had a number of " loan societies "
on his schedule, appeared for his final order.
An attorney appeared to oppose, and Mr. T. B.
Ltughes supported the application.
Mr. HUGHES took a preliminary objection to the op-
position, on the ground that it was on the part of a loan
society at No. 4, Farringdon-street, called " The Life
Assurance Company," which was not a corporate body.
Ile cited a case which had been decided before Mr. Com-
missioner Fonblanque (on an objection raised by Mr.
:Sturgeon, the barrister), that a loan society which was
:not chartered could not oppose. The point arose re-
specting one of the parties connected with a promissory
:note, on which it was now sought to oppose the present
The attorney said he appeared for a Mr. Coventry, a
payee of the note for 501.
Mr. HUGHES said ho was one of the parties belonging
to the Loan Society.
Mr. Commissioner HoLnovr• said the opposition was
now by an individual creditor, and, prima facie, the
party had a right to oppose. Mr. Coventry might be
' a money lender, and using the grand name of a com-
pany.
Mr. THOMAS insisted that the same rule should be
applied in this case as was in the one he had cited. The
; note was the same, and although the name of one of the
parties might now be given, it was evident that the As-
surance Company held the promissory note.
The attorney who appeared to oppose, said he was for
Mr. Coventry, who had been his client for a number of
years.
Mr. HUGHES asked for an adjournment, in order to
prove his proposition, as he felt confident that the
Court, acting on the rule as laid down by Mr. Fon-
blanque, would not permit an unchartered association to
oppose. Two instalments had been paid on the note at
the office of the Society, and the Company had got the
insolvent to insure his life. lie pressed for an adjourn-
ment, and for an order that Mr. Coventry should attend.
The Learned COMMISSIONER, after some further dis-
cussion, adjourned the case to the Bth June, in order to
ascertain the validity of the point raised, and gave an in-
timation that Mr. Coventry should attend.
Mr. HUGHES said he was confident the note was held
by the Society, and that two instalments had been paid
at the office in Farringdon-street.
The case was adjourned accordingly.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover compensa-
tion in damages for slanderous words which had been
used by Mrs. Chambers. These.words were the follow-
ing :—" Mrs. Ferguson is a. notorious thief, and she has
brought up her whole family t o theft, and all crimes that
are bad. The whole family are notorious thieves. One
of their daughters robbed us a fortnight ago. and the
old man, the father, lives upon the plunder." Upon the
trial it appeared that Mr. Chambers's wife did not live
with him, and that she had not been robbed. The
Counsel for Mr. Chambers then urged that Mrs. Cham-
birs was a woman of very violent temper, and that Mr.
Chambers had no control over her. Lord Denman, how-
ever, who tried the cause, directed the jury that the hus-
band was liable for the acts of his wife. The jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff, with 40s. damages.
Mr. JAMES was instructed to move an arrest of judg-
ment, on the ground that a sufficient cause of action was
not stated in the declaration, because it was only alleged
that the plaintiff lived upon plunder. Now there could
be no doubt that a man might exist upon plunder with-
out being aware that that upon which he was living was
plunder. It.was evident that the slander was against
the wife and daughters, but this action was brought by
the plaintiff. •
Lord DENMAN considered that the plaintiff was in-
cluded in the family, and in that light had good cause of
action.--Rule refused.

COURT OF EXCISE.
Mr. Wm. Parsons, the proprietor of the Duke of York,
in Turk-street, Bethnal-green, was charged with hav-
ing in his possession five gallons of British spirits that
had not paid duty, and was find 201.
Johanna Rapp, of 23, Golden-square,Westminster, was
complained of for selling wine and spirits, she having no
license. The case was fully made out by two respect-
able officers of the court. Defendant's residence is a
lodging-house, and information having reached the
Board of Excise that exciseable articles were retailed
therein as in a tavern, a detection immediately followed
—wax-lights were charged 35.; apartments, 105. 6d.;
fire, ls.; servant, 35.; and the other charges for refresh-
ments were equally exorbitant.
An attorney argued, that as the officers went to his
client's house on a Sunday, stating that they were going
to a funeral, she was bound to serve them; but Mr.Mayow
sarcasticallyreplied, that such articles ought not to be sold
by unlicensed persons, to the detriment of the very heavy
taxed tavern-keeper. Proof having been given that the
defendant was rated in the parish books at a rental of
821. a-year, the Court gave judgment, fining her in the
penalty of 23/.
Victor Gengues, of Nos. 1 and 2, Leicester-square, was
ordered to pay 15/. for a like offence.
Edward Smith, 17, East street, Fibsbury-market,
French polisher, was summoned for being in possession
of a quantity of illicitly manufactured spirits. Ten gal-
lons of the stuff was produced in court. It was 22 per
cent. over proof.
Defendant said he had purchased the spirit as naphtha.
at 9s. 6d. per gallon.
Mr. Sanders, the store-keeper, in answer to the Court,
said that the duty was 7s. 10d. on such spirits.
A fine of 5/. was inflicted, and the liquor was adjudged
to be forfeited.
John Gibson, 4, Providence-buildings, Old Kent-road,
was summoned for working a private still.
Mr. Bayfield, a gentleman connected with the Excise,
said that he discovered on the defendant's premises a
private still, which was in full operation, and charged
with sixty gallons of molasses wash. A most extensive
business must have been carried on by him.—Fined 501.
No other cases than the above-mentioned were brought
publicly forward during the past week.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
CITY POLICE COMMITTEE.
The question brought by the City Police into this
Court, last week, of the alleged nuisance caused by
the Jew dealers obstructing the different streets and
avenues in the neighbourhood of Petticoat-lane, by
exposing their goods for sale, again occupied the at-
tention of the magistrates, Mr. Alderman Kelly, Mr.
Alderman Fairbrother, and Mr. Alderman Johnson,
for a considerable time.
The Court was crowded on Saturday chiefly by
persons of the Jewish persuasion, and the interest
taken in the proceeding was greater than on the pre-
vious investigation, which resulted in consequence of
Mr. D. W. Harvey, the chief police commissioner,
having visited the neighbourhood, and the determina-
tion on the part of the corporation to suppress Sunday
trading.
After much discussion, it was resolved on the part
of the defendants and others of the Jewish persuasion
present in the Court to abandon all Sunday trading ;
and the Commissioner expressed his firm determina-
tion of prosecuting all persons found trafficing after
this day (Sunday) week.
The owners of the two marts hoped there would be
no distinction made. All dealers should be treated
alike as well as the marts.
Mr. Ryland—Depend upon it the Corporation will
indict any persons offending after receiving this
caution.

CLERKENIVELL.
A man named Pearce was put at the bar, charged
with stealing a sovereign, the money of Sarah Bridges,
a servant to Mr. Richardson, of No. 4, Belgrave-
terrace, Holloway.
The prisoner, it appeared, was employed, with other
men, in painting and otherwise beautifying the house
of Mr. Richardson, and while so engaged, the box of
the prosecutrix was broken open, and out of it was
stolen a sovereign. The companions and fellow-
workmen of the accused consulted together on the
subject, and they eventually fixed the crime on him,
and under that impression they first inflicted "a
summary justice" in fastening his hands behinds him,
and painting his face, the lower part white, the nose
red, and the forehead blue. The matter would have
been thus allowed to drop, had not the prisoner sub-
sequently applied for an assault-warrant against one
of his shopmates for the injury, or rather insult, he
received on that occasion. It was positively sworn to
that the accused, while under this treatment, acknow-
ledged that he had stolen the sovereign, expressing,
at the same time, his sorrow, and a desire to be
allowed to work it out.—Committed to Newgate.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 25.
TfIE QUEEN V. DOUGLAS.
The Hon. Mr. DENMAN moved for a rule to show
cause why the defendant should not be discharged out of
tf4e custody of the Marshal of the Queen's Bench Prison,
on the ground that he had been in prison upwards of 12
smiths, and his debt was under 20/. The defendant was
committed in exeoution on 23d of February, 1843, for
a debt of 12/. 7s.—Rule granted.

BROWN V. 'WRAY.
Mr. C. JONES applied for a rule to show cause why
t e defendant in this case should not be discharged out
o the custody of the Marshal of the Queen's Benchr
l.
icon. It appeared that the defendant had, on a po.. _
nous occasion, been in custody for the same debt, and
on the same writ. In March, 1842, defendant had made
as arrangement tom the debt to the plaintiff by instal-
flWT'ts of per month, and the first payment would
bkorne due on the 23d of April following. On the 14th
of that month however, ho wants arrested by another
eked/tor, whereupon several detainers, the plaintiff's
being one of them, were lodged against him. He quickly
scibtled the other claims, and on the 18th he sent to in-
f6rm the attoeney of the plaintiff that the Marshal would
not release him unless the detainer of his client were
withdrawn. That was, thereupon, done, and he was once

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, MAY 27, 1844.

be bound by the illegal act of her agent.' Ile then
called

Mr. Tucker, who stated that in consequence of the
resolution of the Board of Guardians, he had the
notices produced stuck up in the shop, and that on
the day in question he had asked every person who
came with lace if it had been ordered, and all that had
been ordered he paid for in money. The lace that the
complainant made was a sort that was never ordered;
they had no sale on it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cox—Mrs. Chick sold
bread, butter, drapery, &c. Employed five bakers.
Did not deliver the bread to the lace-makers, but gave
them tickets to go to either of the bakers for it. Paid
one baker 451. for ten weeks' bread. The difference
in price at which Mrs. Chick sold the bread, and at
which it could be bought for ready money, was a
halfpenny per loaf; the difference in the price of
butter, one penny per pound. Paid all the persons
on the day in question in cash, whose lace had been
ordered, there having been eighty persons who
brought lace that day, perhaps more, perhaps less.
Would not swear that he paid, 1/. in money ; would
swear that he paid some money. Did not know if he
had paid ss. ' • believed he had. Had the bill declaring
that he would exchange goods for ready-made lace
printed in consequence of the resolutions of the Board
of Guardians. Wrote it himself ; employed no lawyer
to do so. Did employ a lawyer's clerk. Several
other witnesses, whose evidence was unimportant,
were then called, and
Mr. Cox addressed the Bench. After the facts that
had come before them, he need say nothing as to the
injurious effects of the truck system; he had proved
that the lace had been ordered, and paid for in goods ;
and the attempt which had been made to throw dis-
credit upon the informants had failed; he had never
known a person in her position give evidence better ;
he was very fortunate in having so good an inform-
ant in the first case that was brought forward,
The BENCH at once declared the offence proved,
and fined Mrs. Chic' in a penalty of 51., and 21. costs,
and ordered that 2/. 10s. should be paid to the poor
woman, Sarah Perry. They further intimated that
on any further conviction of any one they should
award the full penalty.
The public are indebted to the exertions of Mr. E.
Carter, of Ottery St. Mary, for this case having been
brought forward.—Western Times,