The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-17 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY.-(TIIIS DAY.)

Conviction under the new Act, of stealing a less
amount than 40s. from the employer, subjects the
offender to 14 years' transportation, to which punish-
ment the prisoner was immediately sentenced.
John Whittal, aged 19, was indicted for stealing
two hundred weight of lead, value 71., the property
of James Granby, on the 3d of June last, at Poplar.
—Guilty.—Seven years' transportation.
James Smith pleaded guilty to an indiwnent for
uttering a counterfeit shilling, and having another in
his possession.
The RECORDER suggested to the prisoner the
propriety of wittulrawing his plea, as the Act of
Parliament appointed a specific punishment, and left.
no discretion with the Court.

The prisoner replied, that it was no use wasting
the time of the Court and July, as he should not be
able to refute the evidence which would be brought
against him, and persisted in his plea.
The RECORDER then sentenced him to twelve
months' hard labour, and to be further imprisoned
till he entered into his own security, and found two
other persons who would enter securities for his
good behaviour for two years.

SURREY SESSION S.-(THIS DAY.)

James Millwood was convicted of stealing a coral
necklace from the person of Jemimillayes. It
appeared from the evidence of the proseeutrix, Who
was a child of about ten years of age, that she was
playing in Stamford-street, Blackfriars-road, near her .
father's house, when the prisoner came up: and said,
" There is something on your neck," upon which he
came behind the child, and unclasping the neeklacer-•
ran off with it. The prisoner was a fine intelligent
looking lad of dark complexion, and a witness who
came forward to speak to his character, and lived in;
the same neighbourhood, stated that his mother Wsr.
a woman of some property, but that the prisoner' ap-
peered to be much neglected.
Mr. AGAR (the Chairman) declined sentencing
the_ boy until his mother was sent for.
_
Edward Reeves was indicted for stealing a quan.:;
tity of lead, the property of James Dummennow,
It appeared that, on the night of the 17th June,tt
considerable quantity of lead was stolen from off"
sky-light, in the factory of Mr. Dummennow, at
Rotherhithe. The prisoner -reiided in the neigh.
bourhood, and was apprehended in the Kent-road
the following morning, driving a truck, which con-
tained 100 lb. weight of lead.
The prisoner had been in the employment of Mr.
Diunmenow for above 25 years, and stated, in hie.
defence, that he had found the lead in a common
sewer.
The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to
be imprisoned in the House of Correction at Brix-
ton, for twelve calendar mouths, and kept to hard
labour.

Bar!

COURT OF CHANCERY.
THE MATTER or THE SUITORS OF THE COURT.

sired
inted
Lehr,
[WIC'

hicb
re'
life,
most
until
kvileo
Lndtti
;veal

LAW IN.AttIe+ENCE.--(THIS DAY.)

Sir C. WETHERELL—p;senTed a petition in this
meter, which prayed that the Court would raise to
the appointment of a seventeenth and eighteenth
clerk in the Accountant-General's Office. He believed
that the subject matter of the petition had been al-
ready made known to his Lordship, which saved
him the necessity of occupying time in discussing it.
His LORDSHIP thought it necessary from the state
of the business i❑ the Accountant-General's Office,
t.O increase the force of that office, as from the de-
beiency of strength there, he had learnt that some
business had been neglected.

VAWSER V. JEFFREY.
This was a part-heard appeal. The Counsel, in
toncluding their arguments in it, occupied the fore-
noon. The question arose upon the construction
Of P. marriage settlement, and was, whether the
legal construction of the covenants contained 'there-
in, revoked a will that had been previously made re-
!pecting copyhold property, that had been blended
in description in the marriage settlement with free-
hold property.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would consider
the case.

IZEROT V. BURN.kI;D.
This case Was next called on, and proceeded in.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH,
ASSIGNEES OF SCOTT AND BRAGG V. TODDS.
'This was an action of trover brought to recover
the sum of 60/. as the price of butter. The facts
ware shortly these :—The bankrupts were provision
agents in London, and were frequently employed by
a Mr. James Reid, of Newcastle, to sell goods for
him. On the 14th January, 1826, he shipped at
Newcastle 25 firkins of butter, for the bankrupts to
sell as usual at London. He advised them of the
transaction, and drew upon them for 50/., the value
of the goods, at two months, and they accepted the
draft, which afterwards passed into the hands of
third parties. The butter arrived at London, on
the 11th of February, and was consigned to the
hands of the defendants, who are wharfingers, 111
the interval, however, Scott and Bragg became
bankrupt; the first act of bankruptcy was commit-
ted on the 28th of January, and on the 30th of
January, they advised the defendants that they
stopped payment. The defendants immediately
communicated this intelligence to Mr. Reid, who
wrote in answer on the Gth February, desiring the
defendants not to deliver the goods without u special
order from him, which they complied with, and de-
livered them up on a subsequent order to a diffe-
rent party. The plaintiffs were appointed assignees
on the bankrupt's estate, and brought the present
action.
The only question was, lvbether Mr. Reid, under
the circumstances, had a right to etop in transitu.
The COMMON SERGEANT and Mr. CUMMINS, for
the plaintiffs, contended for the negative of the pro-
position, and the Attorney-General contra for the
affirmati ye.

Lord T2NTERDEN said, that if Mr. Reid had not
in this case a right to stop in transitn, the right could
not be exercised in any case whatever, and conse-
quently the whole law upon the subject would be
at once effaced from the Statute book.
The plaintiffs were of course nousuited.