The Sun.
London, England, 1845-09-02 00:00:00

- _
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Sept. 1.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England sat to-day at
balf.past three, for the purpose of hearing any applications
that might be considered of a pressing nature.
ROBERT t 7. BARRS.—INJUNCTION.

Mr. TEID, with whom was Mr. Tooke, applied, upon no-
tice, for a special injunction to restrain the defendant from
invading a patent, obtained by the plaintiff, for the manu-
facture of top-tips for umbrellas. It appeared, from
the statemenas Of the Learned Counsel, that both
plaintiff and defendant were umbrella manufacturers in
; that the plaintiff obtained a patent, in 1837,
for the manufacture of a peculiar description of top-tips for
umbrellas, and that in 1841, upon discovering that the defen-
dant was making asimilar article, he brought an action against
Aim in consequence of his infringement of his rights. To that
action the defendant pleaded that the invention was not new,
and that it was useless. Upon the action being tried the
jury found that the invention was novel and useful,
but that the plaintiff was not the first inventor. The plaintiff
then disclaimed to certain parts of his specification, and thus
matters stood till a short time since, when the plaintiff discovered
that the defendant was manufacturing articles similar to those
manufactured by him under his amended patent, and upon that
discovery he filed his bill and gave notice of the present appli-
cation.
Mr. SWANiTON opposed the application, on the ground that
Vle plaintiff knew well of the proceedings of the defendant,
r and that the defendant had a right to do what he had done, inas-
much as the patent was invalid.
His Horror's. declined making any order until more explicit
affidavits were filed with respect to the time when the plaintiff
first discovered that the defendant was making the articles, for
the manufacture of which the plaintiff claimed the exclusive
right. The motion consequently stands over till the termina-
tion of the long vacation.

SILVERI)/ V. ROBINSON.

. Mr. SwaxsToX moved in this case for an order nisi for a
Sergeant, at Arms. It appeared that the minutes of an injunc-
tion had been served upon the defendant, which restrained him
from removing the green crops off the farm of which he was
tenant, and that, notwithstanding that injunction, he had
done so.
The Couax made the order.
His Hoxoua will not sit again till the Brat day of Michael-
mas Term.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

THE LATE FRACAS AT THE EAST IWDIA Houss.--
At one o'clock Sir Henry Willock, Chairman of the East
India Company, appeared before the Lord Mayor to answer a
complaint preferred against him, at the instance of Mr. Peter
Gordon, for an assault committed in causing his expulsion from
the chairman's chair at a meeting of the proprietors of the
East India Stock, held on Saturday, the 2,.3d August last. The
ca4e which had been partially heard on a previous day, an ac-
count of which appeared in the Sun, has caused considerable
excitement in the City, and particularly amongst the proprie-
tors, directors, and others connected with the East India House.
The Court was literally crowded with the friends of both
parties. On the bench were Sir Lionel Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Willock, Mr. Hogg, M.P., the Deputy-chairntan, and several
of the directors of the East India House.
Mr. Clarkson, the barrister, appeared on the part of Sir
Henry Willock, and Mr. Parry on the part of the com-
plainant.
The LORD MAYOR, having taken his seat, inquired of Mr.
Gordan if he was ready to proceed with the case? Mr.
Gordon—l am, my Lord.
Mr. Clarkson—l understand my friend Mr. Parry is in-
structed to appear for the complainant, and I have no wish to
take any advantage of his absence, an/ would suggest waiting
a reasonable time, if Mr. Gordon has no reason to believe he
Rill not attend.
Mr. Gordon—l expected to have seen him here.
Mr. Parry having entered the Court, considerable delay took
place in obtaining the attendance of a second magistrate to
enable an adjudication.
Alderman .Moon having entered the Court,
Mr. Parry proceeded briefly to state the facts out of which
the assault arose. Mr. Gordon, being a proprietor of stock of
1,000/., the value of which is 3,800/., attended a special meet-
ing of the proprietor., convened, according to a requisition
signed by Sir Charles Forbes, General Briggs, and others, to
consider the claims of the Raj iof Sat tara, held on thy 23d of
August, by adjourninent from the previous day. The meeting
was appointed fur ten o'clock, but at half-pa-t nine Mr. Gordon
attended, and placed himself in the chairman's chair. At ten
o'clock Sir Henry Willock, the chairman, entered the
Court, with Mr. Hogg anA a body of the Directors,
and proceeded to where Mr. Gordon was sitting.
Sir H. Willock then somewhat sharply desired him to vacate
the chair. Mr. Gordon rose and said if it was the desire of
the Proprietors that he should do so he would at once comply,
and inured on one side of the chair. 11r. George Thompson,
a Proprietor, then proposed Sir H. Widock should take the
chair, which was seconded by Mr. Gordon, upon which Mr.
Ilogg protested against that motion being put, as Sir H. Wil-
lock was entitled to the chair as a m utter of right, as Chair-
man of the East India Company. Sir Henry Willock also
refused to be voted in the chair, and elaimed it as a right,
noon which Mr. Gordon re-took the chair. Sir Henry
Willock again requested him to vacate the chair, or he should
'be compiled to use force to compel him. Mr. Hogg also ad-
vising his being removed, ultimately a constable of the name of
'Wilson was called, who took Mr. Gordon by the arm and re-
moved him from the chair towards the door. Mr. Gordon
re nested to be taken to prison or before a magistrate, but the
constable said he had nothing further to do with it, and Mr.
Gordon ultimately remained in the room ; this was the assault
complained of.
Mr. Gordon having been called, and deposed to those facts,
Mr. Clarkson, at considerable length, cross-examined him, to
show that it had been a previously arranged movement, with a
view to test his right as a Proprietor ; and in the course of
whieh Mr. Gordon admitted he had written and got printed a
number of hand-bills, which he had distributed without any
printer's name to them, reflecting upon the Directors, and
which Mr. Clarkson designated as a libel.
Mr. George Thompson was also called to prove the same
facts, and, on cross-examination by Mr. Clarkson, stated Mr.
Gordon had told him he intended to pursue the course he had,
and he (Mr. Thompson) advised him not, to prevent confusion,
as he was deeply interested in the matter that would be brought
under discussion.
Mr. Clarkson said he seriously asked the Lord Mayor if he
called upon him, on behalf of Sir Henry Willock, to answer so
trumpery a charge? It was clear that Mr. Gordon had him-
self no vote, and that he was an intruder in taking the chair,
not having been requested or elected to the chair. The
Learned Counsel was proceeding to make some very strong re-
marks upon the conduct and motives of Mr. Gordon, when he
was stopped by the Lord Mayor.
The Loan MAYOR—I perfectly agree with my brother
Magistrate, that Mr. Gordon was himself an intruder, and that
the case must be dismissed. —Dismissed accordingly.
Mr. Clarkson applied for a certificate of the dismissal.
Mr. Parry said the matter would not end there, as there
were other Proprietors who were determined to try the ques-
tion as to the right of the chairmaa to take the chair without
the consent of the proprietors.
GUILDHALL.

Michael Cor, a tailor, about fifty years of age, was brought
before Mr. Alderman Johnson, charged with running away
and deserting his wife and Eve children, whereby they had be-
come chargeable to the parish of St. Sepulchre.
Mr. Miller, the relieving officer of the district, stated the
nature of the charge, and that the wife had caused the prisoner
to be taken into custody. The case had very much surprised
him, as the parties had resided some time in the parish, ap-
parently in comfort and respectability, and keeping a well-
furnished house.

The wife said her husband had left her to live with a mar-
ried woman, who was separated from her husband, and who
was notorious for coaxing away married men. Her husband
lived at Dundee, bat his wife got so bad a name there that
they were glad to give her some money and send her to Lor.-
don. The complainant had great difficulty in tracing ont
v here this woman was living. Her husband had left his home
about six week 4, and she met him on Sunday night going with
the brandy bottle to procure some liquor for the woman. She
caught him round the waist, and begged him to come home to
his little children; and his reply was, that he would never
live with her another day. She then gave bira in charge. He
had deserted her once before.

Mr. Alderman Jouxsox asked what trade the prisoner fol-
lowed? The wife said he was a tailor, and earned between 21.
and 31. per week.
The prisoner said nearly all his wife said was false.
Mr. Alderman JOHNSON wished the prisoner to go by steps.
Vas it false that he had left his home for six weeks? The
prisoner replied he must state all the circumstances. During
the current eight or ten weeks a tailor in London could not
earn 10s. a week. He had saved up 4/. to go to Dublin on a
4sit, but he was spending the money in London. He did not
v• -2a to desert his home. As to the woman spoken of, she
uses. old acquaintance. She was older than himself, and
was an 'QS a married woman, and what his wife said, therefore,
was besiu •.e true.
could pot b.
-tan JOHNSON did not see that what the wife had
M n,
Mt. Alde
lessarily be false. According to his own ac-
alleged must nes
kno 'eking about London, spending all the money
count he was
and leyring his five children and wife to starve.
upon himself,
said had a lad to assist him, and the wife
xaigbt have derived
a week from his labour. He cut out
a lot of work for hint he went away.
m
Mr. Miller said the Cvle
f had been reduced to ask for paro-
chi al aid.
The wife believed her husbNid never intended to return,
because he took away three suits ef his clothes.
111 r. Alderman Jonnson said he -.vas not satisfied with the
explanation the prisoner had offered, and he committed him
0 hard labour for one month.
MARYLEBONE.

A respectably attired man, named Taylor, entered the wit-
ness box and addressing the sitting magistrate, Mr. Rawlin-
eon, said I have an application of a somewhat curious description
to make to your Worship.
RAwLiNsON7—Let me know what it is you want.
Applicant—l wish to ask you, Sir, in the presence of In-
spector Brown, why the police are set day after day to keep
a watch upon my premises ?
Mr. RAWLINSON (to the Inspector)—You hear what
this:_xaan says, and I suppose can give him an answer.
lab•pector—A man has been sent by the superintendent to
Watch, end I'd rather not explain why he has done so.
Mr. 11..5.wmusort—This person asks the question in open
Court, an,i surely you may satisfy him at once.
Inspector---The superintendent has caused to be done what
is complained of, your Wor'ship, and I can explain his reason
if you- like to h,'er me.
The Inspector w•. 29 here about to address the Magistrate
in au under tone, Olen,
Mr. RAWLINSON iftiid to applicant—The inspector refuses
to give an answer to your application.
Applicant—l think it is very hard, Sir, that I should be
watched in this way, and I sLailiz-el it my ditty to seek redress
elsewhere. fle then quitted the Court.
LAMBETH.

.Robert Webster, a very powerful man, whose head was co-
vered in two or three
places with adhesive plasters, mid de-
moted by various large bumps that he had been subjected to
very serious violence, was charged before Mr. lit nry with
attacking and violently assaulting the constables tk9 and 73 L.
From the evidence, which was taken at considerable length,
it appeared that between eleven and twelve o'clock on Saturday
night a disturbance took place in the tap room of the George
11,06'o-bowie, in Lambeth-walk, and the police were called in
ba ,‘Jr. Anderson, the landlord, to quiet it and turn the parties
and wed in it out of doors. Ain-,ngst the rioters was the wife
of V7ebater the prisoner, and up of her being put out of the
bouse, the polico, according to tht..ir cwn version, were attackt.d
by her h •
leban,l who knocked them about, and in self-defence
they were compelled t. draw and use their truncheons. 89
admitted having struck and wounded the prisoner on the front
of hiltbead„sud 73 also did not deny having given Webster
sever blows %-ith his staff, but not on the head.
On the part of the pile..., Mr. Smith, a tradesman in the
aseigistkourbood, was called, who deposed that the constables
did not drew their staves until it was abFolutely neces.;ary for
their'ilvin protection, as the mob assembled was very consider-
able,-and the feeling and excitement against them was very
greaf:
(i) the part of the prisoner, two respectable tradesmen re-
siding close to the George deposed, that they had in the first
place_ seen the constable 89 thrust the wife of the prisoner out
of the Public-house with such force that she must have fallen
-upon her back on the pavement, and been severely injured, had ,
she et come against her husband. The latter asked the

police the reason for shoving his wife about in that way, upon
which they instantly drew out theititruncheons, and 89 gave him
a desperate blow on the front of the head, which instantly
felled him to the ground. Not content with this, 89 grasped
him by the colloar, while 73 deliberately struck the prisoner
three desperate blows on the back part of the head.
Mr. HENRY was of opinion the constables had used unne-
cessary violence towards the prisoner, and had inflicted some
severe injuries upon him. He should, therefore, discharge
him ; and as the case was one which required further investi-
gation, as respected the conduct of the police, he (Mr. Henry)
would direct that a report of the proceedings be laid before the
Police Commissioners, Ind a day would be appointed for a fur-
ther investigation into the matter.
Joseph Hardcastle, mate of the schooner Lark, was charged
with violently assaulting his captain, Mr. Lee ; also with
brutally assaulting Mrs. Lee, and attempting to throw her
overboard.
Mr. Games, who attended on the part of the complainants,
stated the nature of the charge against the prisoner.
It appeared that on Saturday evening the Captain and Mrs.
Lee went on shore, leaving the prisoner and their three sons
on board, and on returning between eleven and twelve, they
found that the prisoner had left the vessel during their absence,
and was not then returned. In about an hour afterwards the
prisoner came on board, and became very noisy. Mrs. Lee
requested him to go to his berth, when he struck her a violent
blow upon the temple, and inflicted a wound of nearly two
inches in length. He also struck her several blows on the face,
and was endeavouring to throw her over the bows of the vessel,
when her husband came to her assistance. The prisoner then
turned upon Captain Lee, and the first thing he did was to
jump upon the instep of the Captain's right foot, and do it
serious injury, added to which the Captain has been for some
considerable time labouring under rheumatic gout. He also
struck the Captain severely, and would have done him serious
mischief had it not been for the timely arrival of a police-con-
stable.

The prisoner, in defence, said his mistress had assaulted him
in the first instance, by pushing him.
The prisoner was then ordered to pay a penalty of 5?. for each
assault, or in default two months' imprisonment.
GREENWICH. _

Mary Ann Williams alias Adams, Agent, Ancient, Gil-
more, Evans, Brown, and Garwood, a well-dressed and intel-
ligent woman, aged about 25 years, described in the police
sheet as the wife of a commercial traveller, residing at 126,
Windmill-street, Gravesend, and Daniel Garrett, a young
man in a sporting dress, who described himself as a cabinet-
maker by trade, but latterly a groom out of employ, and living
at 6, Bond-street, Vauxhall, were charged with being con-
nected in uttering excellently executed counterfeit half-sove-
reigns. The prisoners had been remanded to make inquiries,
and to have the attendance of the solicitor to the Mint, in order
to identify them if old offenders.
Mr. Powell attended for her Majesty's Mint, and identified
the male prisoner as having been tried, convicted, and sen-
tenced to twelve months' imprisonment in Newgate fer a simi-
lar offence to the present charge; and the female as having
been examined before the Lord Mayor for a like, offence ; but
not being known in'the City before, and the evidence not being
sufficiently conclusive, was discharged a few weeks since.
From particular inquiries made by the police during the past
week, there appears no doubt but they are connected with a
gang of coiners.
Amelia Elliott deposed that she keeps a stall in the Thames
Tunnel for the sale of fancy goods. On the 22d ult. the
female prisoner purchased a view of the Tunnel at Is. 6d., for
which she tendered a sovereign in payment. Witness was
asked for half a sovereign in part change. She not having
one, went to the toll-keeper, who gave her half a sovereign,
which he weighed, and ten shillings in silver. Witness laid
the whole change on the counter to the prisoner, who counted
it over, and gave her ls. 6d. hack. Witness then turned to
serve some ladies on the other side, and on her looking back
the prisoner said she feared the half sovereign was bad, and
begged to ask somebody if it was not so. She took it imme-
diately to the toll-collector, who declared it bad, and said that
it was not the one he gave her. .He then weighed it, and
found it very light. He lent her a good one, which she gave
to the prisoner, who went away followed by the male prisoner,
who had previously spoken to her a stall or two off. She
immediately gave information to an officer of the Tunnel police.
Charles Lock, toll-collector, corroborated the last witness.
The prisoners were fully committed to Newgate for trial, but
were informed that good bail would
,be taken in each case fir
801. and themselves in 100/. each.
HAifaIERS:WITH.

Martha Smith was brought up in the custody of the police,
before Air. T. Paynter, the sitting magistrate, ou the following
charge of robbery :
Mrs. Harriet Clarke, an aged lady, deposed that since the
l9th of August last she had been residing at the house of
Mrs. Morris. at Parson's-green, Fulham. The prisoner was
Mrs. Morris's servant. Since witness had been there she had
missed a variety of articles, and that morning, in consequence
of witness having complained about it, Mrs. Morris called in a
policeman, whom, with the prisoner, witness accompanied up
to the prisoner's room, and then saw the policeman take from
her box the petticoat, veil,
.three pairs of gloves, three towels,
ore habit shirt, and collar, three French cambric handker-
chiefs, a piece of fringe, several pieces of lace, a pocket knife, a
purse, sundry pieces of ribbon, and other articles produced,
which were part of the things she had misse Witness was
sure they were all safe when she went to Mrs. Morris's a fort-
night since. The prisoner waited on witness, and had access
to articles. When she was in the prisoner's room that
morning she found her flannel dressing-gown there, which
the prisoner had done her the honour to sleep in on the previous
night.
Policeman Fitzgerald, 89 V, corroborated Mrs. Clarke's
statement, and produced the articles identified, and also some
articles belonging to Mrs. Morris, which had been found in the
prisoner's box. Mrs. Morris, who had received high recom-
mendations of the prisoner from some friends in the country,
declined to prosecute her.
The prisoner, who was in tears while at the bar, declined
saying anything, and was fully committed for trial.
WANDS WOR TB.

Susannah Bennett and Sarah Bennett, mother and daughter,
the latter enceinte, were charged with stealing four onions
from a piece of land belonging to Mr. Robert Spencer, a
farmer, in Battersea fields.

Police-constable Lionel Hodder, of the V division, proved
that the younger prisoner pulled up three onions, and the
elder prisoner one.
The defence set up by the mother was, that her daughter
was in the family way, and as they were passing through the
piece of onions on their way home on Saturday evening she
suddenly craved Inc some onions, and could not resist the
temptation of taking two or three.
Mr. PAYNTER fined the prisoners 7s. each, and Ed.
the value of the onions, or seven days' imprisonment in
default. _ _

The elder prisoner paid the fines, and then requested the
Magistrate to allow the policeman to give up one of the onions
to her daughter.
Mr. Donald Nicholl, of Pavilion Cottage, York-road, Bat-
tersea-fields, applied to the magistrate to know what proceedings
could be taken to put down a fair which was to be held in a
portion of Battersea-fields, near to some most respectable resi-
dences, and which commenced that day and etas to last until
Wednesday night.

Mr. PAI(NT‘iR, addressing Inspector Creed, said he supposed
it was one of the numerous illegal fairs that are being held in
all parts of the metropolis.
Inspector Creed observed that the magistrate's surmises were
correct. They (the police) had already been applied to, but
they could do nothing more than preserve order.
Mr. Nicholl said, the conduct of the people assembled on the
spot on Sunday was most unseemly and offensive, and the fact
was, that if Battersea-fields continued to be made the resort of
thousands of bad characters, it would soon become a valueless
property, for no one having pretensions to gentility could con-
tinue to reside there.

Mr. PAYNTF.R observed he was sorry he could be of no
assistance, and he hinted that the Legislature would soon find a
remedy for the evil, for these illegal fairs entailed a great deal
of trouble on the police magistrates.
BROMLEY.

Four young girls, named Eliza Lewis, Maria Lewis,
Mary Ann Stringer, Sinfield, and Rebecca Sinfield,
the mother of the last-earned defendants, attended before
Viscount Sydney, and Messrs. Goodhart, Chapman, and
Behrens, the presiding Magistrates at the Bromley Bench, to
answer the charge of having unlawfully plucked, and appro-
priated to their own use, sixty-five apples, value 3d., the pro-
perty of Sir John Lubbock.
The charge having been read by the clerk—
Lord SYDNEY inquired what plea the defendants put in?
Mary Anne Stringer said it was true, that being thirsty while
going across the orchard, in their way home from work, she and
three of her companions had pulled a few apples to eat, in order
to quench their thirst, and they did not think they were doing
any great harm.
The Magistrates said, as the offence was not admitted, they
had better hear the evidence.

Goodchild, a gardener in the service of Sir John Lubbock
upon his estate at Down, near Bromley, then deposed that on
the day named in the summons, he saw the defendants in the
orchard about the apple-trees, and thin king they were doing
wrong by taking the apples, he went towards them, upon which
they all ran away. He pursued and overtook them, and, found
in their possession sixty-five apples, which he produced.
The gardener here held up the apples, which were tied up in
a handkerchief. The bulk was not much greater than the size
of two clenched fists, and

Lord SYDNEY asked the witness whether he meant to say that
there were really 65 apples contained in the bundle ?
The wanes) replied that there certainly were, and he was
ready to count them ; but, he added, " they were very little
ones."
The BENCH told the witness that he must state what he saw
each of the defendants do with regard to taking the apples, and
he then admitted that he did not see the mother (Sinfield) with
any apples in her possession, and a ith regard to her daughter,
all he knew about her was, that she was eating an apple when
he came up to her.
The Bench ultimately dismissed the charge against the
mother, and convicted the other defen, iants in the penalty of
55., to be paid between them, together with 3d., the value of
the apples, and 4s. 6d. costs,