The Sun.
London, England, 1828-12-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH', DEC. 3.
TURNER V. LORD TURNOUR.
This was an action by a tailor, to recover the
balance of his bill for liveries furnished to the de-
fendant's servants. There was no defence.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 41/. 6s. 6d.
ASHLEY V. HUGHES AND OTHERS.
This was an action by the assignee of an insolvent
debtor named John Knott, to recover the value of
certain household goods all( gad to have been illegally
seized by the defendants, under a distress for rent.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
GAZARD V. Wi'LIE.
This was an action by a lodging-house-keeper at
Lincoln, against a sporting gentleman, to recover
s=ll. 12s. for 26 weeks' lodging at the plaintiff's
house, at two guineas per week. The plaintiff's
case was proved by the plaintiff's daughter, and the
Jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found for
the plaintiff for the full amount of his claim.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEc. 3.
SARAH DARBY V. eoereet SANDER,.
Mr. TOMLINSON, in opening the pleadings, stated
that this was an action of trespass. The de-
claration stated, that on the 25th of December last,.
the defendant made an assault upon the plaintiff,
and afterward=, without any justifiable cause, caused
her to he imprisoned for the space of twenty hours
in a watch-house. The defendant pleaded first the
' general issue, and then two special pleas of justifi-
cation, in which he averred that the plaintiff, who
was employed by him as a shopwornan, had em
bezzled sundry sums of money belonging to him, and
that in that belief he had caused the imprisonment
of which she complained.
Lavinia Derby—l am the sister of. the plaintiff,
and I went to reside in the defendant's house in
Little Pulteney-street, in December last. My sister
attended in the shop in the Burlington Arcade, but
we all lodged in the house in Pulteney-street. I re-
member being sent for on the morning of the 25th
of December last, at about half-past nine o'gclock. I
went into my sister's room, and found her trunk open.
Mrs. Sander, Buckland (an officer), Emily Sander,
and Eliza Coe were then present. When I went
into her room, my sister said to me," Who gave me
this necklace ? Mrs. Sander says she will hang me
for it." I said," Who gave it you? why your bro-
ther." She then said, " Who gave me these
ribands? Mrs. Sander says they are hers." I said
to Mrs. Sander, " Will you swear to. them ?" She
replied, " I will." My sister had money belonging
to her at that time, having been in business herself
in Shoreditch, in the fancy way. My sister was
taken away to St. James's watch-house, by the
officer, Buckland. She had a ring of some value, '
which had been given to her by her brother. She
was afterwards taken to the Marlborough-street
Police-office, and was exemined before Sir G. Far-
rant. When she was taken to the watch-house, I
went to inform my brother. I went with her to the
watch-house, and remained there as long as I was per-
mitted. She remained all night. I saw her next morn-
ing, and accompanied her be the police-office, where
a charge was made against her by the defendant for
stealing money only : he had before charged her
with stealing goods and money. He produced a
witness, but the charge was dismissed. My sister
said at the office, " Mr. Sander, did I ever wrong
you of a farthing ?" He said, " No, it is only what
I have been told." Sir George Farrant then asked
him if he had any thing more to say against my sis-
ter, and on his replying in the negative the charge
was dismissed. I had made an application to my
sister on the day before Christmas-day for some
money. That gave me an opportunity of seeing
what money she bad. I took four half-crowns from
her box into my hand, and then put them by, and
the box was closed. We then retired to bed. I
saw the same money the next morning that I had
seen the night before, amounting in silver to 11. .I*e;
The officer took possession of the money. He had
a knife in his hand, and my-sister charged him- with.
having marked the money. He took a half-crown
and a shilling to tl.te window, and having looked at
them, said, " This is enough."
Further evidence was adduced, but before the
Jury had determined on their verdict, Mr. Serjeant
ANDREWS said he would not appear, but would sub-
mit to a nonsuit.
The plaintiff was accordingly called.
JEMISIA IRESON V. LADY GRESLEY•
This was an action brought against Lady Gresley
to recover 21., the amount of the plaintiff's claim
against her for various articles of grocery supplied.
The case was distinctly proved, and as the defen-
dant's counsel had nothing to say in the case except
to quest'oe the veracity of the plaintiff's witnesses,
a verdict was returned for the full amount of the

claim.

MOSES V. LADY GRESLY.Y.

This was an action brought against the same de-
fendant by her washerwoman, to recover the amount
of her bill for ten months' washing. It was proved
by one of the defendant's servants, that washing to

the amount of between 201. and 301. had been &Me
by the plaintiff for the defendant, but as the Coun-
sel for the latter did not produce a book in which
the precise amount of the claim was entered, and
which was in the hands of Lady Gresley, the exact
amount of the plaintiff's rightful claim could not be
ascertained.

The defendant's Counsel made a few observations
by way of defence, but did not pretend to lessen the
amount of the claim.

The Jury, after having consulted for a short time,
returnedu verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 28/.los.

SURREY SESSIONS, DEC. 3.

Yesterday the case against John Pyezvell, for
feloniously stealing the sum of 301. from Job W00d...
man, excited mucVinterest, and the Court was ex-
ceedingly crowded during the trial by horse-dealers
and others interested in the charge.
Mr. JEMMETT, who was engaged for the Prosecu-
tion, briefly detailed the circumstances, and said,
that in consequence of the prosecutor having seen an
advertisement in the Times of November 4, describ-
ing that three Valuable horses were to be disposed of,
and directing application to be made to view them
at the Globe, in the Surrey-road, the prosecutor
went there on the following day, and was referred
from thence to a stable in Pearl-row. Having arrived
there, he saw the prisoner, and in the interview with
him, the latter ordered a horse, whieh he called
" Solicitor," to be led out of the stable into the
yard. The horse was a bright bay, with white legs,
and, as far as external appearance went, appeared to
be a very fine animal. The prosecutor desired that
a saddle might be placed on his back, in order
that his paces might be seen. The stableman said
that he had lent the saddle that morning to his
brother, upon which the prisoner affected to be exceed-
ingly angry. And when the prosecutor requested
that the man might mount him without a saddle, the
prisoner said, " God bless you, the horse is so high
mettled that he would run away with any body, un-
less the proper restraints were. put upon him ;" if,.
however, added he to the prosecutor, you have any
suspicion that the horse is not sound, I can dispose
of him elsewhere, as he is well known as a hunter
of the first-rate in Staffordshire, where he would_
fetch double the sum that is now asked for him.
Some further conversation took place between the
patties relative to the horse; and it was agreed
that the prosecutor should return in half an hour,
and at the expiration of that time a saddle would be
Procured. When the prosecutor went back to the
stables, " Solicitor" Wai again led out of his stable,
and a saddle placed on his back, the girth of which
was however found too short; this was thrown
aside, and ultimately the stable-man was directed to
mount him by the prisoner, who desired his man to
be very cautious, and not to put him out of a walk
for fear of the consequences. " Solicitor" teas then
gently walked up the yard, and on this trial his de•
tects were not perceivable. The prosecutor from
the repeated assurances of the prisoner that the
animal %vas perfectly sound in wind and limb,
scarcely doubted the truth of his assertions, upon

which he asked the price, and was told 601. Some
demur, however, took place between the parties,
and it was ultimately agreed that the pi-osecutor
should advance the sum of money laid in the
indictment to the prisoner, who said that in case
the horse was not found to be the one represented
in every respect, the money should be returned in
half an hour. The prosecutor then got on " Soli-
citor," the prisoner intimating that he should pro-
vide him with a whip in five minutes. The prose-
cutor having waited for that titre, and the prisoner
not returning according to his promise, " Solicitor"
was trotted into the road, and the moment he was
put into a canter he roared to that degree that evin-
ced he was completely worthless. Upon this dis-
covery the prosecutor immediately led back the,ani-
mal to the stables, and upon inquiry for the prisoner,
the prosecutor was told that he was not there, and
every attempt to obtain an interview with the pri-
soner subsequent to the transaction was useless.—
The Learned Counsel then remarked that the
question the jury had to decide was, whether the
horse was not, under all the circumstances, led out
by the prisoner for the purposes of fraud, and whether
there was not a predetermination of robbing the
prosecutor; for the moment the prisoner obtains
possession of the prosecutor's money he runs away,
and is not seen again, although the horse was left in
the stable, and although repeatedly called on by the
prosecutor until his apprehension.
After evidence in support of the facts had been
adduced,

The CHAIRMAN observed that the indictment
against the prisoner could riot be sustained ; it ap-
peared that the parties had entered into a contract
together, and however culpable the conduct of;lthe
prisoner might have been in the transaction, the evi-
dence adduced was not of that character to warrant
a conviction ; these were every day occurrences, and
if a verdict of guilty was returned in this instance,
many horse-dealers of eminence in the metropolis
would be rendered liable to a similar proceeding.
The Jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict
of acquittal, upon which a buzz of approbation re-
sounded through the Court, a great number of the
fraternity of horse-dealers._ being present, who ap-
peared deeply interested in the fate of the prisoner.

ROBBERY BY A SERVANT.

John King stood indicted for embezzling the sum
of I/. 7s. 3d., the property of his master Mr. Brown,
a butcher, residing at Clapham.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The sentence of the Court was, that the prisoner
be transported for seven years.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.