The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-11 00:00:00

HILLS V. CROLE.

Mr. WAKEFIELD replied to-day in part-heard appea'
motion, and

The toRD CHANCELLOR postponed his judgment.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Feb. 10.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
This being the first seal after Hilary Term, his Honour the
Vice-Chancellor of England took motions to- day, none of
which possessed any points of interest to the public.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 10.
(Sittings in Banco after Term.)
TIIE BARON DE BODE v. THE QUEEN.
The arguments in this case were resumed this morning by
Mr. Kelly, who, on the 'part of the Crown, contended that
there was not a single instance to be found in which a petition
of right was brought against the Crown for a pecuniary de-
mand—that such a form of proceeding could only be had re-
course to in the case of land or land and chattels, and that,
even supposing a petition of right was the proper remedy,
it could not be brought for unliquidated damages.
There was no probability of the case being brought to a
conclusion to-day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 10.
(Before the Lord CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. REILLY.
This was an information filed by the Attorney-General to
recover penalties alleged to have been incurred by removing
goods on which the duty had not been paid at the Custom-
house, and by fraudulently collusion for that purpose with
the importer and the servants of the wharfinger. Theirfor-
mation contained four counts.

The Solicitor-General, Mr. Jervis. and Mr Wilde appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Humfrey for the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence for the prosecution that the
defendant, being a carman, was in the habit of carting;
goods for Messrs. Cordingley and Co , importers of silks
and French goods, in Paternoster-row. When Messrs.
Cordingley intended their goods to pay duty, they
were in the habit of marking them U C, on other
occasions they marked them AK. In October, 1840, the
defendant brought a bill of lading to a persen named Goold,
an agent for him, to pass the sight entry for some goods im-
ported in the name of Madame Metzler, by the City of Bou-
logne steamer, from Boulogne. Mr.Goold not being a licensed
agent, employed a Mr. Arnott to do it for him, and through these
parties the goods were passed. The defendant was seen to be
interfere in the transaction through all its stages, in the sight
en:ry, the perfect entry, the landing, and the payment of the
duty. The main feature of the fraud in question was, that a
large case, occupying 26 feet, and containing two cases,
having been landed, the larger one was set aside and the
smaller one only brought forward to be charged with duty.
The single penalty for which the Crown went was 7721. 16s.
The jury returned a verdict for the Crown for the single
value-7721. 16s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb 10.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
Three special jury cases, and one common jury case of no
importance, were disposed of in little more than an hour, and
the Court rose at half -past eleven o'clock.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
PERJURY.— Williams A. Kennett, a young man of gentle-
manly appearance, was indicted for perjury.
Mr. Doane was for the prosecution ; Mr. Clarkson, with
Mr. Bodkin, appeared fur the defence.
The evidence in the case showed that the defendant's bro-
ther and another person were connected with a Loan Society
in St. Pancras, to which one James Potter acted in the ca-
pacity of secretary. On the 30th of February last year, a
person named Watts applied for a loan of 301., and produced
as security two men, Spriggins and Adams. The propietors
of the Society objected to the security produced, and a third
name, White, was mentioned. The two first-named
securities, and the principal, Watts, signed that night,
and the secretary being incapable, either from ab-
sence or intoxication, of witnessing the signature, the de-
fendant signed the bill. On the succeeding day White
signed, and the money was handed over to Watts. The re-
payments to this society not having been kept up, an action
was brought in the Sheriff's Court, and the defendant having
there sworn that he had seen 'Watts sign his name, it was
alleged that in taking this oath he had been guilty ofperjury.
The jury were ably addressed by Mr. Clarkson, who called
a number of witnesses, and they gave the defendant a first-
rate character.

One witness, White, the third security, was called on the
part of the prosecution, to prove that the name of Watts was
not upon the bill when his (White's) was appended. The
witness on his cross-examination, however, contradicted him-
self in every important particular.
Mr. CLARKSON (to the jury)—Can' you credit this
witness ; and yet it is upon such evidence that it is sought to
ruin the character of the young man standing before you.
The Learned Counsel made some further observations having
reference to the last witness, when he, in a state of great ex-
citement, again re-entered the witness.box.
Witness—What is that you say, Sir? lamto be believed
on my oath—believed before you, Sir.
Mr. CLARKSON continued, though frequently interrupted,
to address the jury, but his remarks were of so bitingly
sarcastic a character, that the wrath of the unfortunate
listener in the box fairly exploded, by his giving the Learned
Counsel the lie direct.

The RECORDER severely reprimanded him, and said, that
in the event of such another indiscretion, he ahould be com-
mitted to prison. The Recorder then summed up, and
said
jury at
thatmr .once Kenn returned a verdict o
etescharacterwasw wholly
lyNot Guilty,unimpeacheadn,
Caleb Morris and Charles Crickler were indicted, the former
for stealing a purse and two 5/. Bank of England notes, the
property of George Rogers, and the latter for feloniously re-
ceiving one of the notes, well knowing that. it had been stolen.
Mr. Ryland prosecuted, and Mr. Prendergast appeared for
the defence.
The circumstances under which the charge was preferred
against the prisoners will be fresh in the recollection of our
readers from the police reports, and it will therefore not be
necessary to go into them at any length on the present occa-
sion. The prosecutor was at Greenwich on the Ist of April,
last year, and while proceeding to the railway-station, on hi,.
return to London, lie lost his purse and its contents. The
purse was shortly afterwards picked up by a lad named
Stevens, who was at the time an apprentice to the prisoner
Morris, who is a tradesman at Greenwich, and he t0...k the
purse home to his master. The prisoner examined it, and
said that it contained two 5/. Bank of England notes, and he
claimed them as of right belonging to him, but, at the same
time, some sort of promise was made to the boy,
that he should receive 2/. as his share, and it
appears that seventeen shillings were in .point of
fact given to him by his master as part of the 21.
Some evidence was adduced to show that the prisoner Morris
changed one of the 51. notes in London, in payment for a
pair of trowsers, and i t order to connect the other prisoner
with the transaction. The boy Stevens deposed that Morris
gave him the second 5/. note and told him to get it changed,
and that soon afterwards he said that he had done so, and at
the same time observed that the notes had been advertised,
and if they did not mind they should get into trouble about
them.

Mr. PRENDERGAST addressed the jury on behalf of the
prisoners, and called several witnesses who gave them an ex-
cellent character.