The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-02 00:00:00

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE.••(THIS DAY.)

FROM LLOYD'S.

PORTSMOUTH, DEC. I.—Wind E.S.E.—Arrived
the Harmony, Taylor, from Jamaica.
PLYMOUTH, Nov. 30.—Wind E.S.E.—Arrived
the Argus, from Quebec ; Amelia, from Smyrna ;
Colyton Union, Goode, from Messina; Ashburton,
Balhack, from Naples; and Restitution, Rice, from
Charente.

FALMOUTH, Nov. 30.—Wind S.S.E.—Arrived
the Magnet packet, from Lisbon, sailed the 15th
inst.; and Barracouta packet, from the Leeward
Islands, sailed from St. Thomas's the 12th of Oct.
DARTMOUTH, Nov. 30.—Arrived the Lovely,
Cruizer, from Patri.
BRISTOL, Nov. 30.—Arrived the Coral, from
Virginia; Anne and Mary, Foster, from Sicily.
LIVERPOOL, Nov. 30.—Arrived the Corsair, Gra-
ham, from New York. Off Port, the Sappho,
from Jamaica.

DUNDEE, Nov. 30.--Arrived the Bellona,
Mitchell; Henry, Betts; Samuel, Duff; La-
tona, Ormond, and Scotsman, Reed, from St. Pe-
tersburgh ; Urania, Mearns, and Armstead, Glendy,
from Riga.
HULL, Nov. 29 and 30.—Arrived the Amity,
Stubbs, and Daniel Wheeler, Wharton, from St.
Petersburgh; Cornwallis, Barns, from Wyburgh ;
Glenora, Ware ; Mary, Johnson, and Tianby,
Layton, ditto; Rebecca, Anderson, and Wort-
ley, Redley, from Gottenburgh ; and Columbia,
Pearce, from Pernau.
STOCKTON, Nov. 30.—Arrived the Ibbetsons,
Simons, from St. Petersburgh; and New Concord,
Watson, from Memel.

The Caledonia, of Glasgow, was fallen in with
the 4th ult., in lat. 42, long. 68, abandoned, water-
logged and dismasted.
The Harmony, Cruize, from Memel to London,
was abandoned the 26th ult., totally dismasted.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

The Vwx-CuaxcaLtoa was occupied the whole of the
morning with bankrupt petitions, possessing no interest
except to the parties.

ROLLS' COURT.

Nothing of any interest took place in this Court to-day
previous to our going to press.
His HONOUR took petitions and short causes, the hearing
of which appeared likely to occupy the Court the whole day.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
THY PORTABLY BATH COMPANY.-THE WEST LONDON

WATER COMPANY V. SURVERCROP.

Th's was an action by the plaintiffs to recover from the
defendant, John Hilary Survercrop, who was laid as one of
the persons composing the Portable Bath Company, in
Oxford-street, the value of water which it was alleged had
been fraudulently obtained from the Company.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom were Mr. Den-
man and Mr. Comyn), stated that the defendant, in 1821,
bad established a Company for the supply of warm baths
to the public, and engaged with the above Water Com-
pany to supply him with water for a tank at the lower
part of the defendant's premises. It was subsequently,
however, aseertained that that the defendant, in conjunction
with a turncock belonging to the Company named George
Smith, had another pipe laid on the sewer.pipe, for the
purpose of supplying an upper cistern with water, which
had, however, been previously pumped up from the lower
cistern. The Water Company having been informed of this
pipe, sent a person to inspect the premises, who
found that the pipe had been recently stopped, and the
mortar of the wall, where it had been stopped up was
quite soft. As, however, this fraud had been carried on
for a considerable time, the Company were obliged to bring
their action. The Learned Counsel then called witnesses
who proved that Mr. Survercrop had, by letter, signed by
himself, made the contract with the Company ; Mr. Van-
heiden, however, being on one occasion, when he called at
the Water Company's Office, in his company. The pipe
was proved to have been put down by a plumber, brought
by Smith, the turncock ; it was laid on the sewer-pipe,
between the main pipe and the guage-cock, and was done
in the night. The defendant's name was also proved to
have been on the carts of the Company.

Mr. CAMPBELL (with whom ;vac; Mr: Holt), for the
defendant, contended that he was not a partner, but merely
a clerk in the Company, and that at the time the new
pipe was laid on, which was done at the instigation of
Smith (and for the mere purpose of saving labour), Mr.
Survercrop was in the country ; he had since offered the
amount of the advanced rate the Company would have
charged for supplying the water to a first floor, and
contended that no mora water had been used. The
Learned Counsel called witnesses, who proved that Smith,
the turncock, kept a book awl received the amount of
the difference for forcing up the water. The defendant's
father, one of the partners, produced the deed of settle-
ment, which set out that the defendant should have a sa-
lary of two per cent. on the gross receipts of the Company.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply, contended that the
Company's receipts which he had put in would show the
difference in the quantity of water supplied while the last
pipe was on, and which was also observable when it was
again taken off. He submitted that the defendant, having
formed the contract, having his name on the carts, and
being included in the deed of partnership, was quite suffi-
cient to fix him as the defendant, and the evidence was
also enough to fix on him the knowledge of the fraud.
LORD TENTERDEN summed up, and the Jury found for
the plaintiff.—Damages 201.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

LIBEL AND FALSE lIII.RISONMENT....FINDEN V. WESTLAKE.

Mr. SerjeantWiLnx stated the case; the plaintiff is a young
man of very respectable family, and the defendant an at-
torney; and the action was brought to recover a com-
pensation in damages for a libel and false imprisonment.
The libel consisted in the defendant publishing a hand bill,
offering SOL reward for the discovery of three bills of ex-
change, which be charged the plaintiff with having em-
bezzled, and afterwards having him taken up on that
charge. The defendant pleaded the general issue. The
Learned Counsel then detailed the facts of the case, and
called the following witnesses.
John Tucknell was employed by the defendant to post
about 150 band bills, offering a reward of SOL for the
discovery of three bills, which bills charged the plaintiff
with having embezzled. The defendant gave directions
for them to be posted in the City and west end of the
town.

Robert Duke is a police officer of Hatton-garden.—Ap-
prehended the plaintiff on a charge of felony ; received the
warrant on Saturday night, the IBth of April. Mr.
Westlake, the defendant, wished witness to execute it that
night. It is very unusual, no Magistrate attending at the
office on a Sunday, to execute warrants on a Saturday
night, and therefore he objected, unless ordered to do so
by the Magistrate. Defendant said he would apply for
such an order, as the young man was about to leave Eng-
land, which be accordingly did and obtained it. The
defendant then said he would send one of his young men
with witness to identify the plaintiff, and requested,
for the sake of his family, the warrant might be
executed in as quiet a way as possible. Witness then
proceeded to the house of the plaintiff's father, but
was not able to serve the warrant that night,
the young man being from home. He, however, called
again the next morning and took him into custody on a
charge of felony, and conveyed him to St. Martin's watch-
house, where he remained all that day. On the following
morning he was taken to Hatton garden Office, where the
defendant attended, and said the matter had been arranged
and he did not wish to press the charge further. The
plaintiff was accordingly discharged. On the Wednesday
following witness received a message from the defendant
stating, that the plaintiff's father had refused to sign a
bond, and he must therefore take the young man again
into custody. Witness refused, without a new application
to the Magistrate, which Air. Westlake a day or two
subsequently made, but he could not obtain another
warrant. Saw several of the bills issued by the de-
fendant. They applied to the plaintiff.
Cross-examined.—When the plaintiff was examined
before Mr. Laing, on his being discharged the Magistrate
did not say, " Young man you had better take care of
yourself." Some days after this discharge, the plaintiff,
with his friends, again voluntarily attended at the office.
On that occasion did not recollect that the Magistrate
said lie might think himself a fortunate young man.
Mr. Mallett, chief clerk at Hatton-garden Police Office,
remembered Mr. Westlake applying on a Saturday for a
warrant against the plaintiff. The parties again appeared
at the Office on the following Monday, when an examina-
tion took place, and the plaintiff was discharged. The
information, on which the warrant was granted, was then
put in and read, and stated that Westlake, attorPer-
at:-law, maketh oath and saitb, that be believes that