The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-03 00:00:00

A Nf.:lR

I 1S .1)

• - rut., ,he first ,!n of term, the Lord
kg of .1. -entertaining the Judges, Masters in Cbsir
try Queen's Co•AnFel, to breakfast, at his LordshiP.!
r 5 e, Geo ge-street, Hanover- square, tcok his seat in hf
C wit at %% estminster ,at half-past one o'clock. His Lore
s. p vas accompanied by the Master of the Rolls, the Vice,
C a celhr of England, the Vice-Chancellor Wigram, to'
M.isters Farrar and Sir George Rose.
MANN v. RICK ETTS. •
This appeal motion, (,n the appli: alien. of counsel, ir°
ordered to stand for he zing on Thursday week.
COULSTRING r. COULSTRING.
This was an appeal motion, ex parte, from the judgment
of the Master of the Rolls refusing to grant an application cri
the part of a married womsn to sue in Irma pauperis.
application was made on the ground of separation:
The case was ordered to stand over till to-morrow.
It was expected that his Lordship would have risen at tso
o'cicek to attend a Cabinet Council.

VICE-CH ANCERY. -(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND )
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England did not sit to:
day till half-past one o'clock, it being the first day of Michael'
max Term. His Honour took motions.
In the course of the morning Mr. Sergeant Shea and gr'
Montague Chambers were called within the bar.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
The Learnel Baron entered the Court at half-past vw
o'clock.

THE QUEEN'S COUNSEL.

Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. M. Chambers, of the cornrl
,av bar, having appeared on the floor of the Court the Chi.
Bann called upon them severally to take their seats with''
the bar, her Maj, sty having been most graciously pleasedt',
ap,s them to the dignity and station of Queen's Counsel'

LOCKHART V. BERNARD.
•
Mr. Sergeant BYLES said in this case, which was 0;o
Wore Mr. Baron Alderson at the late assizes for `,"„
county of Bedford, and a verdict found for the t;,34
fendant, he had to move for a rule to show came l''';([
the verdict should not be entered for the plaint;
with 1001. damages. He moved upon points which were l'1,;
served to him by the Learned Judge who tried the eaTbot
The declaration being in assurnpsit stated, that I;ii
defendant caused to be printed and publishea
certain advertisement, setting . forth that a cert!lcii
parcel, contaiaing bank-notes and bills of exchange, .0„y,
ha.l been forwarded to Sir Charles Price and CornP3'y
had been either lost or stolen ; and the defendant, lit
that advertisement, promised that whoever WOpt,
give such inrormation as should lead t 4 the lio
mediate recovery of the parcel, or to the early apprehent of
of the guilty party, if stolen, should receive the rewardiii,
100/. The declaration then went on to say, that the pl2inof
did give such information, and the defendant thereby beeg4,
liable to the extent of 100/. ; and concluded by alleg';ie
a breach of the promise in the advertisement. The 4;
fendant to that' deelzrat ion pleaded non-assumpsit, and fed
the plaintiff did not give the information, and the jury I°tjit
for the plaintiff on the first issue, and for the defee"of
on the second. The facts of the case were sb°l4
these :—Bernard, the defendant, was a banker tle
Bedford, and in September, 1840, he sent up a parcel b%"111:
Times coach, from Bedford, containing bills and 15,14,:
notes, being of the value of 1,000!. and upvc,sr •
618.
In the course of its transit to Sir Charles
and Co , Mr. Bernard's agent in London, the Pat,
was lost; and, in consequence, on the 27th of Septembert.i
Bernard published a hand-bill, and that hand-bill contain'
the offer of 100/. to any person who should give such inforOcA-
mation as should lead to the immediate recovery of the
if lost, or to the early apprehension of the guilty 1)21.,1;00
stolen. It appeared that shortly after this a person chi,,:
name of Richards came into the shop of the plaintiff; IA
was a draper and general dealer at Dunstable?
the county of Bedford, and asked for • some 1: p,
stockings. The goods were supplied to him, llnus
tendered a 10/. note in payment. Now the conduct is
this person excited the suspicion of Lockhart, on„00!
consequence of that suspicion he went to a person 11"0-0i,
Cheshire, another shopkeeper in Dunstable, and meettott
the circumstance to him. It then turned out 01
Cheshire bad received a 101. note from the same person'
under almost precisely similar circumstance,. The
cordingly went together and gave information to the pg/1
sta'.,le constable, and eventually Richardson was o,l'oo,
While in bed at one of the local inns, and subsequentlYetfo.
at the Dunstable sessions, found guilty, and transport.,os,
being ccncerned in stealing Mt. Bernard's parcel. The 11 it
tiff then made application for the reward, • I.)dtioP
was refused, and the result was the present
On the trial, however, of the cause the jury returned tt„
diet for the defendant, on the ground that the informae'tioer
not given by Lockhart alone but jointly with anotheyt
son, and, therefore, Cheshire and Lockhart ought 00$4
joined in the action. He (Mr. Sergeant Byles) 10,`011,,'
contended that Lockhart gave the information indivit'hePc;
and consequently he had to move that the verdict 'lolti
aside and a verdict be entered for the plaintiff, with
damages.
The Court confirmed the verdict of the :i;ary, and -I,F
that the action ought to have been broughtjointly by
hart and Cheshire.—Rule refused.

CRIMINAL COURT.—(THIS
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
THE RAILWAY ROBBERIES.
On the opening of the Court, this morning, Charle Ir.
nail!, alias Charles Gregory:, Maynard, 47, house Boit' j
placed pt the bar on the ,enarAe IT felony.
Mr. Clarkson and 1.1,,fr. Bodkin appeared for the Pllr
tion, and Mr. BalliAtine for the defence. v 04,,
The prisoner 'eras indicted on several counts: with 51 er
a writing dnalt containing a sum of *geld and sever/lailf.4
missory notes, belonging to Mr. Prance, solicitor, t,010,0
wafer; also with receiving the Fame, well knowing it et
been stolen; and likewise with being an accessory. 31'
'o*
fact.
.ectiti•J'
Mr. CLARKSON opened the case on behalf of the pro'..albel)
going at some length over the points he intended to ert0..,1
in evidence. He said it was his intention by the 5.143511TeJ
be intended to adduce, to show that the prisoner,'„ifol
was in league with the prisoner Garratt, who had n'
j to the charges of felony preferred against trim; 1"; tO,)if
' the former was a partv cognizant of the feloni°'ileti'v
actions of the latter. 'fhe Learned Counsel then ca'
aVention of the jury to the case he was now about t.,
h',, lo
ot
lisle against the prisoner, namely, that preferred lit -
Prance, solicitor; Bridgewater. It was that of ste`i •
being a receiver after it was stolen, well know ing.,-too°o
such, of a writing-desk, containing a sum of money oestt'ie
promissory notes, the property of the prosecutor
The Learned Gentleman then recapitulated the 10
curnstances already familiar to the public throt nec pr
lengthened police examinations at the Guildhall, re'!ttely
the letters to Mr. Prance, supposed to have been i'cLileeo,;:
Garrett at the dictation of Maynard; the steps of 'SJ
Nash to inculpate the prisoner; the exaneinationralls4,l
lodgings of both prisoners; the discovery of the Elleo4,
not es, &c., on Maynard's premises, decipliered.by
_AV
and found to correspond with those letters sent o'l r"
post-office to Mr. Prance, offering to negotiate for t'''e
of the property.
Mr. Prance, solicitor, examined—Deposed to list jelll4
a passenger on the Great Western Railway front Oe'd
water to Paddington on the Bth day of July last. d
a writing desk With him, which lie saw labelkel
on the truck. It contained ten sovereigns, :and 2,10'
issory notes. and property, in value near e-,0, firt
He missed it on his an ival at the Paddington 'atolltor')o
desk now produced was the one he lost. On hi sritice°o,l
Bridgewater lie received a letter through the post. 0
the London Cavendieh-street post-mark on it, taaloei"
The writing-desk of witness, with the property c. t„cfert
it was safe, and wishing to negotiate through e.n l'iTers,l?
the return of the property in question. The other iebere
ceived by witness in the same handwriting, seicre ce/J
put in an read. CO°,
The Hon. Edward Petre was called and ga:ee etje 6ey
That to the best of his ability the handwriting of
letters produced was, that of the prisoner Garr ate tfity
been in his services prior to 1838, and was foxiih'-'t
handwriting. . • letteo
Mr. Prance resumed. In consequence of th ese 0;ef!/4
applied to the Great Western Company.
Mr. Collard, superintendent of police at the tarel,',tol.,
steti,m, examied.—Said he found certain slretrt'" p 0
now produced in Court on the person of the DO'
Maynard. b Aff'
o 4
Dl}
Gregory, short-hand writer, said tiO 5-er
notes; produced were put into his hand to ttr3c,,,iPhhe
Nash, the selicitor, about two months ago.
were the same as the first letter read. The syrite'"- et
hired used was Gurney's.
Lade•d
Mr. Nash examintd—Was present when thee d°oer L
ciphered by the last witness was found on thn pr';'„ tifi'vce.j
nard. Several scraps of paper were also found
of Maynard's house, which, when put together., °tier re- el
cis.: copy of the short-hand notes and the first le'. ; fe,
by Mr. Prance. 0
e s ref
, sOAO
Tl:e Court rose for a short time, the Commonsees, 'ea
Mr. Alderman Copeland, who was also on the) ter'
been called on to meet the Judges to arrange: the 4313.1,'
the ensuing mayoralty, Jai°
Mr. Alderman COPELAND, on rising to retire wee.(citor
to mention the case of a boy who was tried 10Asee"0
ward Adolphus Hughee, agea sixteen, and who, ie pareweer
a good deal of commiseration. lie was with 'll ors 00,01
relations, and had no one to look to for guider eelig of,ie
circumstances which were angravated by his I )elbet 'Oll3
weak intellect. The boy had been acquitter I, ta1q11,a,11,4
since been maintained in gaol till steps could beerechl„cejvie
case. The parish authorities of St. Leonard's, ;SlP'eo r'lls
been applied to on his behalf, but an answer her t,l°
declining doing anything whatever in the ca' otliel4,
benevolent intention of the judges, the jury, ar, totee.,;el;t
had commiserated his case were entirely-en 15taeritioo'
stated this fact that publicity might be given o_ooo
Oa the return of the Common Sergeant thee.
iet P,11,4
e
witnesses in Maynard's ease was resumd. the
Mr. Prance's examination resumed— -From - oredi
had received, and the advertisement that apt toe;
Times, he consulted with Mr. Nash, and an arm
,a frt!tees,;)fre.)e
made for an interview with the prisoner. One 4eion I'oolo
place in company with Mr. Neste in the GI" "orse,,eo;_e
house. Witness asked the prisoner then in the ..vereolaie
conversation that ensued, if there were not 10 e'lle
it? and he replied, Yes. Witness inquired ho'
the desk? and his answer was, that his elt„ ee:„
stumbled over it in the road. Witinss's name Tavogr"tiet.,"p
docnnients contained in the desk. He told T ml3O oseb,"„
was no use in saying the desk had been found, s"ed 00, doe,
aware it was stolen. An arrangement was cl
the desk was to be returned on the payment o f:44le tvei
Trent.Trent.was drawn up, and at the suggestion ,t ."4° lel'
1.0
several words respecting the property bet Og
struck out. totieusstiettati° e
IMr. Bvaittn.otsixtzartelfeEcti
length st,)%
chief. f
cross
n-examined
teritableth:
met with the prisoner Maynard, and had see ee"jr, teo
0 at tte
with him afterwards respecting the Jetsam o ~,e r
Mr. Nash, solicitor, deposed that, on the i 0.4 0...e..r0cei
Ten
interviews that led to the apprehension of re property. Witness here detailed what tot& . 1)":„jeclte.
particulars of which have been already fully . a1.0."..vhig.131 04.
leadieg point was the prisoner's admission qt.. m,,riaeff.
down in short-hand at the declaration Of ! as t$
terms in which the property was to be retu :yeti' in terl4ooV
witness could judge, the short-hand notes va ore A
that -aegtil
1
same as those produced to-day. Up to the tin has
co
was given in custodyhe hod no suspicion of 1°
esreet:xe
coneexion with Garratt. t
etetioe, gave evidence as to having seats pielTfortj,,
Mr. Collard, superintendent of police at th
house and person, and finding certain docur
Ter a Jost
.70)041
One of them, a diary, showed that a to nnexit
long time between Garrett and the prisoner. Gar.llloaP`,
consit of daily memoranda in which the nem e
relation to business:transactions with the prism.
.I..`,„alidc,
de,
appeals. Part of the diary is written in shot:
c'E;Jot.at,
it
cially the name of Garratt, after the beginnings Level, in:
Elizabeth Ludetnan, of New-street, Edges
.0.1.4ne
posed teat the prisoner Garratt lodged set
the
• se
that Maynard had often called to. Kee fiPrn g$
reett
Thera ppeared to be very
Mr. Roberts, landlord of the Dol.phin,
seen iontodgeto
evidence to the same eflbet. Ile laad otten_sueen„'s I,jiae
well acqngented:.
4,oge
at his house. Garratt, up to tee end ofJ 1y121.1
his house. lie had been a ',Alger three nto