The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-16 00:00:00

cent decision in the Court of Exchequer, it was clear
that this manoeuvre would not avail him.

Verdict for the plainiiff in the whole amount.
CLEVELAND V. WALTER.

This was an action of ejectment, under very curious cir-
cumstances.

The principal was Miss Cleveland, who deposed that
her father was a tripe-dealer, formerly residing in
Tower-street, St. Giles's, but carrying on business
at present in Silver-street, Golden-square. He quitted
the house in Tower-street about twelve years ago, and
left a relation in possession of the premises. Since
that, Mr. Walter, who had married a distant re-
lation of plaintiff's, was put into possession of
the business, with an arrangement to this effect:
the plaintiff was to supply defendant with the
stock in trade, and:to give him one-half of the profits;
and also to allow him 11. per week independent of that
commission. That once in two or three weeks she, in
place of her father, used to settle with defendant, that
she received from him the rent which he had received
from persons lodging in the house. He used also to pay
her the whole of the receipts of the business, and she re-
turned one half of the profits to him. He used to at-
tend at her father's house to settle his acconnts with
him, but on one occasion he sent word to her that he was
unable to come to plaintiff's house, being unwell. In
consequence of this she went to the house in Tower-
street, when he told her that he had no money to give
her. He afterwards refused to settle with any one but
Mr. Cleveland, and subsequently refused to give any ac-
count of the business, whereupon plaintiff gave him no-
tice to quit the premises, which he defendant refused to do.
Several other witnesses were called, who corroborated
the above evidence. It was also proved that defendant,
having been obliged to become insolvent, spoke of plain-
tiff as his employer in his schedule.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, who appeared for plaintiff,
laid great stress on the latter fact.
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, with imme-
diate execution.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 15.
(Sittings in Banco.)
EX-PARTE JOHN RADCLIFFE.

Mr. HATRERTON moved, in this case, for a writ of
habeas corpus to bring up the bodies of two infants, who
were detained in the custody of their grandfather, Abra-
ham Turner. The present application was made on the
part of the father of the children, who stated in his affi-
davit that his wife and infant daughter Mary, aged two
years, went to the house of Turner, and that the infant
was detained is the custody of Turner, who refused to
give her up. On a subsequent occasion his second
daughter, Fanny, aged four years, was taken to Turner's
house without his knowledge, and also detained. The
wife of the deponent also went to the house of her father
and refused to come back, though he wrote to her to do
so, and to bring the children with her. The deponent
also stated that he treated his wife with kindness, as he
believed.—Application granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 15.
(Sittings in Banco.)
PETTY V. WALKER AND OTHERS.

The action in this case was tried at York, when a ver-
dict was given for the plaintiff—damages, one farthing.

One or the defendants in the action, named Isaac
Ironside, moved this morning for a rule of Court calling
on Mr. Fretson, of Sheffield, the plaintiff's attorney, to
show cause why he should not refund the sum of
43/. 18s. 6d., paid to him, under protest, as costs in the
above action. The applicant's affidavit,upon which the pre-
sent motion was fonnded, stated that immediately after the
verdict had been returned, he tendered to the plaintiff's
solicitor one halfpenny (not having a farthing in his
pocket), but that this sum was refused by the latter.
The defendant further stated to the Bench that the Under
Sheriff told him that if the plaintiff's solicitor imagined
that the verdict obtained would carry costs he was mis-
taken, and that it was in consequence of his advice that
he acted as he had done, after the finding of the jury.
For ten days after the trial the defendant heard nothing
of the action, but at the end of that time he was as-
tounded at receiving a letter from Mr. Fretson, dated
Queen-street, Sheffield, making a claim of 431. 18s. 6d.,
as above, accompanied with a threat of execution if the
amount were not paid within a specified time. In order
to avoid running any risk, defendant paid the sum, under
protest. He now applied to the Court, with a view of
recovering the amount.
The defendant having, at the request of the Bench,
read the affidavit detailing the facts of the case,
The COURT granted the rule.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-110[1SE.

A lad named John Johnson was charged with
having stolen a package containing sixteen pieces of
Orleans cloth, each being about twenty-nine yard 3
in length, the property of Mr. Dade, in Friday-
street.

A clerk of Mr. Dade, who was agent to a firm,
stated that he saw the prisoner and another man near
the premises, and the prisoner tooklip the package of
cloth which lay in the passage of the warehouse, and
walked away with it upon his shoulder. The witness
followed, secured, and gave the prisoner into custody.
The prisoner said the package had been placed upon
his shoulder by another person, who promised to pay
him for carrying it.—Committed for trial.
Five young women who had been just discharged
from Peckham workhouse, connected with the City
of London Union, was charged with having broken
eighteen panes of glass in the Mansion-house
windows.

The defendants, it appeared, could never be pre-
vailed upon to work for their bread, but were per-
petually in and out of the workhouse. They all
came to town that morning apparently with the de-
termination to do mischief, and it was stated that
while in the act of smashing the windows they in-
dulged themselves in roars of laughter. Each of the
panes cost seven shillings.
The LORD MAYOR asked each of the prisoners why
they did so much mischief? They all declared they
were prompted by distress.
The LORD MAYOR—You shall all go to Bridewell
to hard labour, and economical diet for two months,
and so shall every window breaker who is brought
before me.