The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-02 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 1.

BISHOP' V. WILLIAMS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff for the re-
covery of the sum of 281.
Mr. LEE stated the case fur the plaintiff: It appeared
that the plaintiff, who was a pei.son of some fortune, re-
sided in the year 1839 at the house of the defendant, a
saddler, at Sawbridgeworth. The plaintiffhad advanced
the defendant 201. in the course of that year, which de.
fendant's wife received, he being himself at the time in a
very delicate state of health. The phintiff afterwards
paid 8L for a carpet to be used in his room ; and the
debt of 28/. was thus made out.

A clerk of the Messrs. Shoolbred, its Tottenham-
court-road, proved the payment of the price of the
carpet by the plaintiff.
Caroline Cross stated that she was the niece of the
defendant. Witness saw a letter in the year 1839 from
Bishop to her uncle, the present defendant, enclos-
ing a 20/. note, which was taken up to her uncle, who
was at the time sick in bed. Her uncle accepted the
money.
Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—Mr. Bishop was
understood at the tune to have been paying his addresses
to a sister of mine who was also living at the house of
witness's uncle. In July last witness's sister eloped
with Mr. Bishop, and they had since lived together ; but
they were not married. Between June, 1840, and
July, 1841, Mr. Bishop, who had previously left
Ihe house, had been there very frequently, and used
to remain there for days. the often invited persons to
spend the evening with him in his room.
J. Cassidy stated that he had taken two letters from the
plaintiff to the defendant, claiming the payment of the debt of
the sum new in dispute. The defendant gave no answer the
first time, but the second time he sat I he would pay Mr.
Bishop himself.
Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—Witness is now a pub-
lican. He Was formerly a train-groo.n to Lord Egerton. Mr.
Bishop and Miss Cross were of late in the habit of sleeping at
his house. Mr. Williams told witness, when he applied to
him for the payment of the money claimed by Mr. Bishop,
that he would pay Mr. Bishop himself. He did not say ha
would settle with him. Witness might have told the solicitor
foe the defendant that Mr. Williams said he would settle with
the plaintiff; but he used the word in order to mislead the
solicitor. NVitness had seen Mr. Bishop in Court that day.
Mr. Bishop was a gentleman who was known on the turf, and
who kept horses of his own.
This being the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. MESMER proceeded to address the Jury for the de-
fence. The Learned Gentleman commented, in the severest
terms, on the conduct of the pla:istiff in this suit. He had
never known a more impudent attempt to obtain the verdict of
a Jury, or the protection of a Court of Justice. The de-
fendant, after breaking the heart of one who had
trusted in his honour, did not blush to come before
them, claiming the payment of a sum of money which
he had advanced, under very suspicious circumstances, and
had the effrontery to produce as a witness in his favour the
sister of his victim, to bear testimony to her dishonour. Since
the seduction of the niece of the plaintiff he had lived with
her in a state of shameful anal abandoned concubinage ; and
now, finding probably his affairs utterly ruined, he hoped to
extract front the family he had irreparably injured a sum to
which he never had a claim. But the Learned Counsel trusted
that he should be able to defeat the heartless attempt. It would
be made apparent that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant
in more than the sum now in dispute. The plaintiff had used
the rooms of the defendant from June,lB4o, to July, 1811, and
had made no compensation to him on that account. There
was also a letter in the handwriting of the plaintiff, in which he
had himself renounced all claim to the payment of his debt.
Those circumstances would be proved to the Jury, and he would
then confidently leave the case in their hands.
Several witnesses were then produced for the defence, who
deposed that in the course of the years 1840 and 1841, Mr.
Bishop had frequently called at the house of the defendant, and
that he had stopped there, and slept there, from time to time.
Mrs. Robinson, the sister of the defendant, stated that the
rent of the rooms thus occupied, from time to time, during
twelve months by the plaintiff, was U. a-week. She men-
tioned to the plaintiff, on one occ ision, that she wished the
rooms might be let ; upon which he said, " No, I would rather
take them myself—in fact, I shall take them."
Mr. Robinson, the husband of the preceding witness, stated
that he had known the witness to have isited the rooms of the
defendant--to have kept his books and his wine there, and to
have invited his friends to the house.
A letter from the plaintiff to the defendant ;vas then put in
and read, in which the plaintiff stated the great embarrassment
in which he was placed, and his determination to leave this
country for America until his affairs were improved. He also
mentioned in the letter that he wished that the 201. he had
I lent the plaintiff's wife might be made over to their niece,
Mary Ann Cross.
Lord ABINGER observed that he did not see how the plain-
tiff could now come into Court after he had himself, as appear-
ed by that letter, renounced his claim to the debt.
Mr. LEE submitted that he had renounced his claim on con-
dition that the money was paid to the young woman; but there
was no evidence that the condition had been fulfiled. The
Learned Gentleman then proceeded to address the Jury at some
length, contending that they had not to pronounce their judg-
ment upon the conduct of the plaintiff, but upon the simple
fact whether the debt had been incurred by the defendant.
or not.

The Jury, after having been charged by Lord Abir.ger, in-
stantly returned a verdict for the defendant.

SHERIFFS' COURT,
KING V. STACEY—cr....O4. CON.
Mr. STAMMERS, who aPPeP....red as Counsel for the
plaintiff, said that this 'an action brought to re-
cover compensation, i damages, of the defendant, t'or
criminal conversatio,;,, "With the plaintiff's wife. He be-
lieved neither the plaintiff nor the defendant occupied
high positior.. In life. The former had been for 26 or 27
years to a stock-broker in the City, and he had
cond.acted himself with such propriety and strict inte-
gtity, as to gain the entire confidence of his em-
ployer, and up to the time of the defendant inflicting this
Injury upon him, he had lived upon terms of peace and
happiness with his family at Ponder's-end. In the year
1826, the plaintiff became acquainted with a Miss Tyler,
and in 1831, he was married to her, the union taking
place under the sanction of the friends of both parties.
It was not until within the last twelve months that the
plaintiff had reason to suspect his wife of infidelity.
About that time, in consequence of the severe indisposi-
tion of the plaintiff, it was necessary that he should re-
side nearer his physician in town, and during his absence,
it appeared the defendant was in the habit of taking his
meals and sleeping at the house of the plaintiff. But if
there was one circumstance that ought to in-
crease the damages more than another, it was this,—
the plaintiff's wife was a woman of an exceed-
ingly eccentric, and, he might say, weak mind, so that
if it should be attempted to be shown that she had not
conducted herself with that prudence and modesty which
other females do, it was easily accounted for by the im-
becility of her intellect. And when he told the Jury
that since she had been restored to her friends she had
been placed ;in a lunatic asylum, and had been under
the care of Dr. Sutherland, they would not be surprised
at her eccentricity, but would visit the defendant with'
proper punishment for the course which he had pursued
towards her.

Several witnesses were called in support of the Learned
Counsel's statement, when the UncTer •Sheriff summed
up, and the Jury, after a brief consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1001.
The damages laid in the declaration were 1,0001.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Itn. 31.
IN RE ALEXANDER lII`DONNELL.
The insolvent had been a bankrupt about eighteen
months ago ; and now, on his application to be dis-
charged under the Act, was opposed by Mr. Woodroffe,
on behalf of a number of creditors. The grounds of oppo-
sition were, that in inducing those parties to give him credit,
he never stated the fact of his being an uncertified
bankrupt ; and that subsequently, on demanding pay-
ment of their debts, he was guilty of the most insulting
and insolent conduct towards them.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN said it was quite sufficient
for creditors to.suffer the loss of tliei: goods, without
being met with insolence when making their just de-
mands, and in all such cases he felt inclined to inflict a
severe punishment. He should, therefore, order the in-
solvent to be remanded for six months from the date of
his vesting order.
IN THE MATTER OF WM. BARNES.
In this case the insolvent, who had been already fre-
quently before the Court, and remanded from time to
time to compel him to give up certain property for the
benefit of his creditors, appeared in Court to receive
judgment, when
Mr. Commissioner LAW ordered the conditional dis-
charge of the insolvent, subjebt to handing the lease of
his property to the assignee of the Court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
An elderly man, who gave his name Thomas Slee, but whose
real name is supposed to be Beville, was charged with stealing
a Ilamburgh sausage from the shop of Mr. Badcock, grocer,
14, Marylebone-street, Regent street.

Charles Clarke, porter to Mr. Badcock, said the prisoner
came into the shop under the pretence of purchasing a small
quantity of tea, and look a German sausage from the counter,
which he put in his pocket. The prisoner was about to leave
the shop hastily, when he was stopped, and the sausage found
on him.

Mr. MA LTBY asked the prisoner if be had anything to allege
in defence ?
Prisoner—May it please your worship, there are three
points in this case I wish to argue. First, I contend the 'shop-
keeper had no right to spread sausages on his counter, because,
being placed in such a prominent situation, they formed a bait
to entrap the unwary and hungry. Secondly, I did not take
the sausage out of the shop, therefore a case of felony cannot he
be proved against me, as it is necessary, in order to sustain such
a charge, that the goods should be reix oved from the premises.
Thirdly, by the porter stopping me so soon as he did, I had no
time allowed me to repent. Had I been left alone my con-
science might have smote me, and I might have returned back
and made restitution of the article stolen in a moment of
temptation.
Mr. Miuray replied to the three points, and held that none
of them in the remotest degree obliterated the charge ; and as
it was advisable to learn something snore about the prisoner,
remanded him till Monday next.
The constable said he had been informed the prisoner bad at
one time possessed nearly the whole of the Alpha cottages, Re-
gent's-park, but.had lost them through indiscretion.
UNION-II ALL.
Yesterday Mary Corsfield, a tall decent-looking female,
with an infant in her arms, was charged with throwing herself
into the Surrey Canal on the preceding night.
Policeman Whitlaxab, 89 M, stated that while he yr as on
duty near the Canal-bridge, in the Kent-road, on the pfevious
evening, about seven o'clock, he was informed that sortie per-
sons had thrown themselves into the canal. He immediately
repaired to the spot, and seeing a person struggling in the
water immediately under the bridge he ran to the house where
the drags are kept, but owing to the difficulty experienced in
procuring them he ran back without them, and perceiving that
the person had sunk, and must inevitably be drow„ed if an
attempt was not instantly made to prevent it, he pulled off his
great coat and jumped into the water at a place where it was
of great depth, and succeeded in rescuing the defendant;kwhom