The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-29 00:00:00

SHEPHERD V. PYRES.

- - -
This was an action upon a guarantee for the soundness
of a barge, which was alleged to have been leaky at the
time of the sale. The Jury found for the plaintiff. Sub-
sequently
a rule nisi was obtained for a new trial ; and;
upon the arguweid, their Ljrcishipi took titnu to oil-LAI:A
judgment, and thi.
s day they mAde the rule absolute.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSIO2V-HOUSE.
THE JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES IN CASES OF
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MASTERS AND APPRENTICES.
—The LORD MAYOR stated that the City Solicit. had
1 of the
received a letter from Devonport, on the s','...ect
authority of Magistrates in matters of . uispute between
masters an,l apprentices. The (11::,stion was one of great
interest and importance, Tr2d-ticularly in the extensive
manufacturing towns the three kingdoms, and the
confirmation of Ir-:. Pearson's opinion by the law.officers
of the CrowL, tvculd, no doubt, give high satisfaction.
Ibis Lo:-„' shp then read the letter, which is as follows, in
"....er that its important contents might be as publicly
known as possible:

Devonport, Jan. 22, 1842.
SIR,—It is with pleasure I inform you that I had
the honour of forwarding a memorial, from the
merchants, manufacturers, and tradesmen of the borough
of Devonport, to Sir George Grey, Bart., M.P., for pre-'
sentation to the Secretary of State, praying the inter-
ference of her Majesty's Government on the subject of
the Jurisdiction of Magistrates in cases of difference
between masters and apprentices, where no premium has
been given to the former ; and that Secretary Sir James
Graham has been pleased to submit•the question to the
Law Officers of the Crown.
And that I have received a communication throw,;ll
the hands of Sir George Grey, from the Home-office,
dated Jan. 17, 1842, that the Law Officers of the Crown
have reported on the above subject, and are of opinion,
that the Magistrates have jurisdiction.
I beg to say, that you are at liberty to make what
use you think proper of this communication ; also if a
duplicate of the original papers from the Home-office,
will be of any service to you, they-shall be forwarded at
your request.—l have the honour to be, Sir, yours
respectfully, HECTOR MUNRO CROCKER.
To Charles Pearson, Esq., the City of
London Solicitor.
His LORDSHIP observed that the communication was
likely to produce a very favourable effect, as numbers of
apprentices had in various places manifested a very
formidable spirit of insubordnation, in consequence of the
general impression that an apprentice with whom no pre-
mium is given was under no obligation to attend to the
commands of his master.
Mr. Hobler said he was present when the City Soli-
citor delivered his opinion, and his Lordship acted upon
it, by sentencing a refractory apprentice to imprison-
ment ; and he had learned since that that decision had
completely changed the tone of those apprentices whose
masters were humane and considerate enough not to re-
quire any premium.

BOW-STREET.
Yesterday Michael Haydon, 465 of the City Police,
was summoned before Mr. Jardine by William Crispin,
a constable employed by the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests, for having, on the 24th inst., unlawfully
molested and • interrupted the free passage of persons
passing through the enclosure of St. James's Park. He
was also charged with assaulting the complainant in the
execution of his duty.
The complainant stated that on Monday last, when
the gates were'closed at half-past four o'clock in the af-
ternoon, he was engaged with others in clearing the park
of persons who were skating. . He was in uniform Kt
the time, and shortly before Ave o'clock, having come ',O
the defendant, who had been amusing himself tb-., entire
afternoon, he gave him warning to quit, l'l '-..en be said he
had been called on before other per-:-..,ne, aika refused to
l
go away until he wished, for
ness went to move him, ^ t-c, was a policeman. Wit-
down with his st-
....id he threatened to knock him
Witness insist ' -iri -
'at the same time going ashore.
onhs g the p, and uon ta
ing hold e.,.' him by the leaving
collarn, he said ark p
that witness wk-
as
1 h_ s:eris Oner, which caused witness to draw his staff
also. A crowd having collected and the ice beginning to
( crack from the weight, witness jumped off, and the defen-
dant said, " You white-livered -, I shall follow you."
Several of the icemen and the men employed by the
Humane Society:l,olo had been employed with ropes in
clearing the ice, corroborated the greater part of the
statement made by the complainant.
The defendant said that three-fourths of the complaint
made against him was false, for when the trumpet
sounded he took off his skates, and while sliding near
the shore to warm his feet, the complainant attempted to
push him ashore, insisting to drive him away. Consider-
ing he
.was selected above others, he reasoned with the
complainant as to the impropriety of his conduct, when
he drew his staff, but he said there was no necessity to
use his authority, as he might take his number, and
could get redress in another wag, which seemed not to
satisfy him, for the complainant instantly collared him ;
and several persons, who had given their address, were
in attendance
.to give evidence. In consequence of the
violence used, when he (defendant) had gone away, thG
mob attacked the complainant, and pelted him with
brick-bats and other missiles.
The defendant then called three witnesses to support
his statement ; but they prevaricated in several of the
principal points.

Mr: JARDINE considered the defendant had behaved
very ill, and the weight of evidence was entirely against
him. He should order him to pay a free of 31. for the
assault, and in default be committed for three weeks.
Mr. JARDINE also said he would represent the matter
to the City Commissioner, who would, no doubt, use his
discretion in what course he thought proper to pursue.
MARYLEBONE.
Yesterday Lawrence Lutridge, a ptkter and glazier,
residing in Petty's-court, lianWay-street, Oxford-street,
was brought before Mr. LONG, on a warrant placed in
the hands of Whip, the officer, charging him with hav-
ing committed a rape
,
Upon Jane Keep, a married woman,
who, with her 11 :„Dand,
occupies apartments in the house
of which `..i.,e prisoner is the landlord.
It. Wolff attended for the prisoner.
The prosccutrix, who is only 22 years of age, stated
that on Wednesday morning last she returned home from
market, about 11 o'clock, and on passing up stairs she
saw the prisoner standing at his door, which was upon
the second floor ; he had in his hand some artificial;
flowers, which he showed to her, and asked her if she
(lid not think them very pretty, at the same time saying,
"If you like I'll buy you some.'! She made no observa-
tion to him, and in an instant he threw the flowers from
him, when he laid hold of her, and, -notwithstanding her
resistance, committed the offence. In reply to the Ma-
i
gistrate, the prosecutrix said, there was no one in the
house but the prisoner and myself when this hap-
pened ; I struggled with him as much as I could, and
as I was about to leave the room, he said he hoped
I would not tell my husband, and promised faith-
fully not to insult me again. I then went :up
stairs. At twelve o'clock my husband returned hoine,
when he found me crying, and I told him what had hap-
pened, and that I should leave the house. In the course
of twenty minutes the prisoner came in, when my hus-
band, who was in a great rage, went down to him and
charged him with the offence, which he denied.
Thomas Keep, the husband, corroborated the evidence
of his wife with regard to the statement which she made
to him, and his subsequent interview with the prisoner.
The prisoner alleged that whatever he had done was With
her own consent. My wife has never told me that he had
ever been guilty of any improper familiarity until last
Wednesday, and she then said that he had twice before
put his hand upon her shoulder.
Mr. LONG committed the prisoner for trial.

LIVERPOOL VACANCY.-We have no positive
information as to the intentions oft Liberals. Are
quisition to Lord Milton is, we believe, under consid -
ration. The names of Mr. E. J. Stanley, Mr. George
Wilbraham, and Mr. Hume, have also been mentioned,
all excellent men ; but nothing decisive has yet been
done. As we have already intimated, our opinion is in
favour of a free-trader, whatever be his politics. If a
Tory, and thoroughly liberal in commercial matters; the
greater the chance of his success. But if such a candi-
date cannot be found, still the friends of free trade
ought to be afforded an opportunity of recording their
votes. It is taken for granted, by one or two of our
Liberal Contemporaries, that the registry, since the last
election, is so much against us, as to render a contest
now even more hopeless than it was then. We by no
means participate in this despondency—this utter aban-
donment of the field to the enemy—without venturing
to strike a blow. Since the last election practical and
personal experience of the evil working of the pr4sent
system has made many converts to the belief, not only
in the possibility, but also in the necessity of a better.
The extent of these conversions ought to be ascertained,
and this can only be done by a contest, supposing that
the Tories determine upon bringing forward a monopolist
candidate. It may be unsuccessful, but the experiment
ought to be made. There are at least 3,500 household-
ers, and some six or seven hundred freemen, staunch
Reformers ; and there may be many more, differing in
politics, but anxious to accord their votes in favour of
free trade, and extended commerce ; and it will be an
everlasting stigma on the good sense and public spirit of
the rerelar leaders in Liverpool, if the opportunity is i
*led them.—Liverpool Mercury, i
.... ... , . ,

PADDOCK V. FORESTER.
The circumstances o£. this case have been already
fully reported. It was an action against the repre-
sentative -of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the pos-
session of coal mines in Staffordshire, for tres-
pass in entering upon the lands of a copy-
holder on the ducal manor to dig for coal. The ver-
dict was for the defendant, and their Lordships this day
gave judgment upon the rule nisi since obtained to set
that aside.— They discharged the rule.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 28.
IN THE MATTER OF JAMES COLDIE.
The insolvent in this case was a distiller in White-
chapel. He was opposed by Mr. Cooke on the behalf of
an old woman, named Martha Stevens.
It appeared- that the insolvent, accompanied by a
friend, was proceeding in a gig from hiS country-house
at Wandsworth to his residence in town, when the op
posing creditor, who was crossing the road at the time,
was,knocked down by the insolvent's horse. She was so
severely injured that she was compelled to be taken to
the London Hospital, where it was found that her thigh-
bone was fractured. Proceedings were subsequently
taken against him by Mrs. Stevens, when the Jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff of 2001. with costs.
The insolvent immediately afterwards became bankrupt,
but had not as yet got his certificate. On the verdict
which had been obtained he was arrested, and he now
applied to the Court to be discharged under the Act.
The LEARNED COUNSEL for the opposing creditor con
tended that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the
insolvent called loudly for the reprobation of the Court,
as he had,' in defending the action brought against him
by Mrs. Stevens, expended 301., with which he might
and ought in justice to have relieved her.
The LEARNED COSI3IISSIONER said, that under -the
discretionary clause of the Act, he found there was no
provision to meet such a case as that before him. In all
cases where damages had been awarded for Crim. C 021.,
or such charges, the Court seldom considered such cir-
cumstances in pronouncing its judgment.
The insolvent was then ordered to be discharged.