The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 15, 1842

the time on her way down the river, keeping to the
south shore. When she reached the point between
Barking-reach and Half-way-reach, the defendants'
steam-boat, the Menai, bore down upon her, after
having changed from north to south. The steamer
crossed the schooner's bows, and took her bowsprit ;
and then the pilot of the schooner having starboarded
his helm in order to avoid the more dangerous conse-
quences which might otherwise follow, the stern of the
schooner struck the steamer abaft the paddle-box. It
appeared that both vessels had in this way sustained
some injury; but it was contended that the accident
was owing to the fact that the steam-boat had im-
properly made for the south side of the river.
Several witnesses were called on both sides, and
after a deliberation of half an hour the Jury returned
a verdict for the defendants.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Dec. 13.
MEDOWCROFT V. HUBININ.
This case involved a nice point of law. The tes-
tator in the case was a Mr. Medowcroft, the father of
the plaintiff, who was married by banns many years
ago—in 1815. His name, however, was entered
wrongly in the church book, " Widowcroft" instead
of Medowcroft, and in consequence of that error, in
the following year a suit for nullity of marriage was
commenced in the Consistorial Court of London, and
the nullity pronounced for by Lord Stowell, who con-
sidered the proceeding a fraudulent one. In the
course of time Medowcroft died, and notwithstand-
ing the judgment of the Court against her marriage,
the lady who had been married to him took out let-
ters of administration as his widow. Since that
period, however, information has, it is alleged, reached
the ear of the plaintiff—the issue of their cohabitation
—that the judgment of the Consistorial Court had
been given on false facts ; that there had been fraud
and collusion in obtaining it ; that the directions
sent to the parish clerk, or rather his daughter, who
entered the name in the church book, gave the correct
name without error ; that there had been no fraud in
frwing the names, and as that was the sole ground of
ord Stowell's decision, that decision might be re-
ersed by the Court; the son might be considered as
the legitimate issue of a legal marriage and probate
granted to him. The interest amongst the parties is
naturally much increased by the circumstance, that
under the will of an uncle, the plaintiff, if pronounced
legitimate will be entitled to 80,0001. An allegation
on his behalf was this day offered, in which the facts
of the case are stated. The proofs of the validity of
the marriage, on which the Court is asked to reverse
the decision of Lord Stowell, are mainly assertions
of the wife, who since the death of Medowcroft mar-
ried, and is now the widow of Mr. Hubinin, a Lieu-
tenant in the navy ; and who declares that the names
were correctly sent to the parish clerk, and assertions
also (including a dying declaration) of the parish
clerk's daughter, who entered the names into the
church books, that in her belief the name had been
,accurately sent, and that the error had occurred
through her carelessness. Other facts are stated in
support of this view of the case, but the declarations
of Mrs. Hubinin and of the clerk's daughter were mainly
relied on. Thus much for the mere circumstances of
the case, but the grand point in dispute is the question
of law whether a Court of Probate could incidentally
set at defiance and overturn the deliberate and direct
judgment of a spiritual Court, given as to the validity
of a marriage—a subject especially within its juris-
diction.
Dr. Addams and Dr. Robinson opposed the ad-
missibility of the allegation ; and Dr. Phillimore and
Dr. R. Phillimore supported it.
Sir 11. J. FUST would take time to consider the
important question of law which was raised upon the
admissibility of this allegation ; but as to the facts
pleaded in it, he feld bound at once to state that the
allegation required very material alterations. Upon
these being made, the Court would decide the grave
and important question of law which had been raised
upon it.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron GURNEY and Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
Alfred Ingall, labourer, aged 18, was placed at the
bar charged with committing a criminal assault upon
the person of Eleanor Amelia Cranston, a child under
ten years of age.
The child stated that she and the prisoner lived
in the same house, No. 36, Great North-street, and
that on the evening of the 7th of the present month,
the prisoner asked her to come up to his room to play
the accordion, and while there committed the assault.
Frederick Cranston, the child's father, and Mr.
Nice, surgeon, were also examined.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and the Court
sentenced him to transportation for life.
Thomas Mountain, Richard Rayson, and William
Davy, were placed at the bar, charged with the man-
slaughter of Samuel Nathan, who died on the 7th of
the present month.
Mr. Doane conducted the prosecution, Mr. Payne
was counsel for Mr. Mountain, and Mr. Huddlestone
appeared for Rayson and Davy.
Mr. DOANE stated the case as it afterwards appeared
in evidence.
The first witness called was Peter Hancock. He
said he was present on Wednesday, the 23d of No-
vember at Mr. Foster's auction-rooms, in Pall-mall.
Saw Air. Nathan, the deceased, there; saw the pri-
soners there also in the ball. Heard Rayson desire
Mountain to send in for some person to
drink, and then to give it to him right and left.
The deceased came out, and then Mountain struck
him. The three prisoners were in the hall. Rayson
and Davy encouraged Mountain to beat the deceased.
They desired him to serve him out. Mountain struck
him in the eye. He tumbled him, and kicked him
when he was down in the sides. He (witness) went
for a policeman. Mountain said that he would use
any person so who accused him of unnatural practices.
Cross-examined----Did not hear Nathan say that
Mountain was guilty of any unnatural practices, or
that he got his living by such practices. MounLain
appeared to be very angry.
Jacob Davis stated, that he remembered the 23d of
the month ; he was in the sale-room. Saw the three
prisoners there. Saw Nathan, the deceased, there.
The parties went out into the passage. Heard a fall.
Saw Nathan on the ground. Mountain was in a rage.
Saw him pull Nathan on his face, and kick him on the
side. Rayson said that Nathan was served right.
Did not see Davy do anything.
Charles Harrington proved that he saw Mountain
striking Nathan in the passage ; he 'got a dreadful
blow over the eye, and a great deal of blood was
flowing from his face.
Edward Wm. Radcliff stated that he saw Nathan
struck by Mountain. He (witness) took hold of
Mountain, and Davis pulled him back also. Davy
said that deceased had used an expression no man
could bear.
Mr. John Brady, surgeon, stated that he was called
to attend the deceased. He was suffering from in-
flammation caused by wounds. Witness examined
him after his death. He examined the head. There
was effusion of blood in the brain. The head was ex-
ternally injured. The right eye was injured. Blows
by the hand would produce inflammation of the cel-
lular membrane. He thought seriously of the matter
at first.
Cross-examined—He was first called in on Friday.
Is of opinion that the wounds caused the death of de •
ceased.
Jacob Mordan examined—Was a friend of the
deceased. Saw him after he received the wounds.
Was of opinion that Nathan was in a dying state.
He made a statement to him (witness) which he re-
duced to writing. He read it over to the deceased.
The statement was then read in Court by the witness.
It stated that Mountain Rayson, and Davy struck
him in the passage leading to Mr. Foster's rooms
in Pall-mall, on Wednesday, the 23d of No-
vember. That mountain was the first person
who struck him in the eye. That Rayson then
struck him, and that Davy also struck him. That he
did not recollect that either Rayson or Davy tried to
take Mountain away. That he did not accuse Moun-
tain of unnatural practices ; and that he made the
statement believing he was in a dying state. The de-
ceased then signed the statement.
The case for the prosecution having closed,
Mr. PAYNE addressed the Jury for Mr. Mountain,
and said that his client had no idea that the death of
Mr. Nathan would be the result of the attack he
made, and that he made it under the provocation of
being called a name which no man could bear.
Mr. HUDDLESTONR addressed the Jury for Rayson
and Davy.
Thomas Hill examined—Was at Mr. Foster's
auction-rooms on the 23d. The defendants were
there. Mr. Nathan was there. He was near the
fire-place. Mr. Mountain went to Nathan, and asked
him whether he said that he (Mountain) was
guiltyare."es
Toihte is rightfunnatural
euporuagct ;
ices.
you know Nathan syaiou,
d
Yes,
prisoners Mountain and Rayson then
went out for a policeman, and came back in some
time. Nathan then said, " Give us something to
drink, and we will say no more on the subject." The
parties went out, and Mountain laid hold of decease(
by the collar, and struck him in the eye; did no
hear Rayson or Davy use any words of encourage,
meet to Mountain.

Mr: Samuel Hart corroborated the testimony of
the last witness.

Mr. Baron GURNEY summed up the evidence.
The Jury found a verdict of Guilty against the
three prisoners, with a recommendation to mercy.
The COURT then sentenced each of the prisoners
to six months' imprisonment in the House of Correction.

John Garner, 19, was indicted for a robbery with
violence upon Benjamin Colls ; in a second count the
prisoner was charged with extorting money from the
prosecutor by threats and menaces.
Mr. PAYNE conducted the prosecution, and stated
the facts of the case as they were afterwards detailed
in evidence. The prosecutor was in the Strand on
the 6th December, and while looking at the print-shop
window near Southampton-street, the prisoner came
up to him and pushed against him. He immediately
left the window and the prisoner followed him, and
asked him to give him half-a-pint of beer. He
crossed the road to avoid him, but the prisoner
continued to follow him, and he at length gave
him some half-pence, and the moment the prisoner
got the money in his hand, he held it out and
said that if the prosecutor did not give him
more money he would call a policeman and give him
into custody. The prosecutor said he had no more
money with him, upon which the prisoner said that he
could pawn his watch, and if he did not do so and
give him a crown, he would expose him. Being
alarmed at his threats, the prosecutor consented to
pawn his watch, and asked the prisoner to show him
where there was a pawnbroker s shop. While they
were walking together the prisoner said that five
shillings were not enough, and that as the prosecutor
seemed to be a respectable man, he must give him
two pounds and he had much better give that sum
than have his character ruined. The prosecutor sub-
sequently went to the shop of a pawnbroker in Long-
acre, leaving the prisoner waiting outside, and he de-
tailed what had occurred to the master of the shop,
and the prisoner was taken into custody. He then,
in answer to questions put to him, denied that he was
waiting for any person, and on his being shown to
the prosecutor, he denied that he knew him, or that
he had ever seen him'before.

The prisoner, in his defence, asserted this story,
and said that he was waiting for his brother when he
was taken into custody.
Mr. Baron GURNEY having summed up, the jury
found the prisoner guilty of obtaining money from
the prosecutor by threats and menaces.
Mr. Baron GURNEY told the prisoner he had been
convicted of an offence of the greatest atrocity, and it
was one which, their experience had taught them, was
becoming very prevalent. Nothing but the utmost
severity of the law could repress it, and the sentence,
was, that he should be transported for life.
isoner was then removed, but, in a short time
therefore
T he p r
the Learned Judge ordered him to be brought back,
and, addressing him, said that he was very much sur-
prised to find that the Legislature had reduced the
punishment for offences of this description, and the
sentence he had the power to pass was, in his opinion,
not at all a sufficient punishment. He then ordered him
to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for three
years in the House of Correction.

Henry NEW COURT.
was indicted for bigamy. The prisonerpleaded Guilty.
Pratt Burrowes, a respectably-dressed man,
Mr. HUDDLESTONE who appeared for the prosecu-
tion, read the advertisement of the last marriage, which
took place at Cork in January of the present year, de-
scribing the prisoner as H. P. Burrowes, Esq., Lieu-
tenant in her Majesty's service, to Maria, daughter of
the late —:— Hayes, Esq. He (Mr. Huddlestone)
understood that the prisoner had been a ibremast man
in a revenue cutter.
The COMMON SERGEANT inquired of Mrs. Jackson,
the second wife who Was extremely well dressed, and
rather good-looking,
pri-
soner before her marriage ?
how long she had known the
(Laughter.)
Mrs. Jackson (holding down her head)—About a
you consider that an
week,T:Nlhr. Sicli
oruFi
Int
OL EN sisTREG.;
ASichTe—Do
waso a widow, my Lord.
excuse ?—(Laughter.)
Mrs. Jackson said she had been married before she
saw the prisoner, and her husband had been dead
about twelve months. She was 29 years of age. She
thought this man would provide for her, and she mar-
ried him, but she could never hold up her head again
in society.
Mr. Alderman FAREDROTHER—You were in too
great a hurry to get married again.
The COMMON SERGEANT asked the prisoner if he
had anything to say in mitigation of punishment.
The
Tuesday,
prisoner said he only saw the lady on the
and married her on the Friday.

Mr. Alderman FiREBROTZER-Why did you f -
get your wife ?
Prisoner—l never saw her for threo years.
Mr. Alderman FAREBROTHER—LYou never loolied
for her.

The constable said he understood that the prisoner
had a wife in Hamburgh, one in Liverpool, and an-
other somewhere in London.—(Laughter.)
The COMMON SERGEANT said they had nothing to
do with that, as it was not proved. Had it been
proved, the prisoner would certainly have been trans-
ported. The sentence then was that he be imprisoned
for one year.
The Court disposed of a great number of Mint
oases, which were of the usual character, and the
prisoners were sentenced to punishments varying
from three to twelve months' imprisonment each.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
?MANSION-110USE.
The LORD MAYOR stated upon taking the chair
that he had received the following note, inclosing 51.
for the Greville-street Free Hospital :
" Crown-court, Philpot-lane.
"My Lord,—Having recently observed in the
public prints that your Lordship had received a do.
nation 'of 51., for the use of the Free Hospital in
Greville-street, I beg to inclose the like sum which
I request of your Lordship to have applied to the
same purpose.
" I have taken the liberty of adopting this medium
in hope that the publicity afforded by these occasions
may prove the means of attracting the attention of
the-benevolent to what I consider a most valuable in-
stitution. " I have the honour to remain,
" Your Lordship's obedient servant,
" WILLIAM To the Right Hon. the Lord MayoTAYLOR.r."
Mr. James, the Barrister, appeared on Tuesday,
upen the part of Messrs. Reeves and Sons, of Cheap.
Ode, artists' colour-makers and pencil-makers of emi-
nence, to complain of a fraud which they had recently
detected. For some time past complaints had reached
the firm that spurious lead pencils had been sold to
parties, who had purchased them under the impres-
sion that they were of the manufacture of Messrs.
Reeves and Sons. Upon examination of the spurious
articles it was found that the name " Reaves" was
stamped upon them, instead of " Reeves,'" but
in every respect, with the exception of the
substitution of the letter a for e in the
name the impression was precisely similar, and thus
the merest rubbish had a character fixed upon it to
which it had no claim, and Messrs. Reeves were, of
course, likely to suffer from the imposition on the
character of their manufacture. About three months
ago, when the detection took place, Messrs. Reeves
gave warning to the makers of the spurious pencils,
and also to the sellers. Amongst the latter was a
person who, a feW days after he received the notice,
called upon Messrs. Reeves, and openly stated that he
was using their names upon pencils which were of no
value, but that if the sum of 201. were handed over to
him, he would give up the dies and the rest of the ap-
paratus connected with the fraud. This offer was, of
course, indignantly rejected. Within the last few days
it had been ascertained that one of the men engaged in
the conspiracy had ordered upwards of 1,000 labels
similar to those used upon the lids of Messrs. Reeves,
boxes, with the exception before alluded to. Those
labels were intended and calculated to deceive any one
who did not critically examine them. The contem-
plated wholesale dispersion of such a quantity would
be of serious consequence to Messrs. Reeves and Sons,
and to the public, who would thus have forced upon
them a mere humbug, worth not a farthing. Under 1
these circumstances, Messrs. Reeves anxiously sought
the protection of the Lord Mayor, not only on their
own account, but for the sake of the commonalty.
The LORD MAYOR said he should certainly grant a
summons against the printer of the libels and placards,
in the first instance, and it would be subsequently seen
to what further steps the complainants could most
properly resort. It appeared to him that a most de-
cided fraud had been committed.
Yesterday a printer, named Webb, answered when
Mr. James attended and called for the person sum-
moned.
In answer to questions put to him by Mr. James,
the printer, without hesitation, or appearance of a
wish to disguise, said he had printed the labels con-
taining the name of Reaves, and the words " pure
Cumberland lead, warranted," and that he had been
employed by one Mr. Raphael, who lived in the neigh-
bourhood of Aldgate.
Raphael here stood forward, and said it was true
he had employed the printer to do the job. He also
said that Mr. Reeves charged 31. 10s. for the same
quality of pencils for which he (Raphael) charged no
more than BS., and that the quality was just the same.
Mr. James—Pray, who authorised you to direct
that those labels should be printed ? Raphael—l ww,
authorised by Mr. Reaves, of Sydney, to get them
printed.—(A laugh.)
Mr. James—What! Sydney in New South Wales?
Raphael—Yes. In New South Wales. T send pen-
cils to India and China, and all over the world ; and I
send them for eight shillings a gross. In my absence
Mr. Reeves called along with his solicitor; and tools
down and examined my boxes of pencils. If I had been
there I would have broken his legs right across with
the poker.
The LORD MAYOR—Then we should have you
here upon another charge.
Mr. James—Pray did you not go to Mr. Reeves
and offer to give up the dies and apparatus for 201 ?
Raphael—No. But I shall not answer you any
further. You have no right to say a word to me.
Mr. James—You call this pure Cumberland lead,
and you say you sell the pencils at eight shillings a
gross. How can you reconcile those two facts ?
Raphael—l shall not answer you. I have no objec-
tion to answer the Lord Mayor.
The LORD MAYOR—How can you call this pure
Cumberland lead ? Raphael—Why it is not pure
lead. That's the fact. It is spurious.—(Laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR—That's the reason I suppose
you called it " pure," and strengthen the character
by adding the word " warranted."—(Laughter.)
Raphael—Just so. But those pencils are as good as
Mr. Reeves' every bit. All he wants is publicity,
but I shall have that as well as he, for I shall placard
it all over the town that I sell for eight shillings
what Mr. Reeves sells for 31. 10s.
The LORD MAYOR—But you have no right to act
in this manner. The foreigners who get hold of this
rubbish of yours must form a very indifferent opinion
of the tradesmen whose name it bears, for it is a very
close imitation of the labels of those respectable
tradesmen.
Raphael—Some of the most respectable Merchants
buy hundreds of gross from me. I sell to several of
your Lordship's brother Aldermen.—(Laughter.)
Mr. James—Your pencils are only fit for fire-
wood. They are not worth a farthing a piece, and I
defy you to mention the name of any respectable
merchant who deals-with you.
Raphael said his pencils were quite good enough.
They were, in fact, he declared, as good as could be
had anywhere.
The LORD MAYOR—Why, you admitted just now
that they were spurious, and of no value.
Raphael here began to praise his pencils most pro-
digiously, and concluded by offering them in any
quantity at five shillings a gross without the box.
The Loan MAYOR—You talk of Mr. Reeves' ob-
ject being to obtain publicity. Now, if the public know
that you sell for Bs. an article which other tradesmen
charge 3/.los. for, you may expect to reap the benefit.
Raphael--"--To be sure ; I know it will- serve me
greatly.
Mr. James—l dare say this business will appear
before the public, together with your admission that
your pencils are spurious, and that the very word
" warranted" means, by your, acknowledgment, that
they are warranted to be base, and of no use whatever.
You will get publicity, I dare say, and you shall have
it in another Court, I assure you.
Raphael—Oh, very well. I dare say it won't end
here.

The printer, in reply to questions from Mr. James,
said that a person, who said his name was Reaves, had
called upon him three years ago, and told him that he
belonged to Sydney, and that he wanted the labels,
which he accordingly ordeied to be left for him at
Raphael's house.

The LORD MAYOR here said that the complainants
had got admissions from Raphael upon which they
could act if they thought proper.
Mr. James said it was the intention of Messrs,
Reeves to indict the parties concerned for the fraud.

BOW-STREET.
A young man, of gentlemanly appearance and ad-
dress, named Lewis knight Bruce, and who, it was
said, was the son of Sir James Knight Bruce, was
placed at the bar on Tuesday before Mr. Jardine,
charged with having wilfully broken two squares of
glass, value 4s. each, in a window in Trolywell-street,
Strand, under the following circumstances :
George Clerke, an errand boy in the service of a
person named Patterson, whose house in the aboves
named street has of late become somewhat notoriou-
in consequence of blasphemous placards being exhi-
bited in the shop window, stated that he was inside
the shop about one o'cicck in the afternoon, in the
act of serving a customer, when he saw the defendant
standing outside and smearing the glass with dirt,
which he picked off the stceet with his stick. He
instantly went out to desire him to desist, when he
smashed one of the panes against which a paper was
exhibited with the stick he held in his hand, and then
took out the paper, at the same time telling witness to
remove another placard from another part of the
window or he would smash that also.
The defendant here said he unfortunately did not
succeed in possessing himself of the second placard.
Witness then took the second paper from the win-
dow, which the defendant tried to snatch fromhim,but
did not succeed, and having followed him to a pastry-
cook's shop in the Strand, he called lb, oonatable and
gave him into custody.

The defendant said he had merely retired to the
pastrycook's to give a gentleman some refreshment
who had expressed his disgust at the abominable ex-
hibition.

Witness, in continuation, said his mastery as from
home at the time, and the defendant told him if he
(witness) was a little taller he would smash him with
his stick. Each pane was worth 45., which was the
price paid for them when they were broken on a former
occasion.

Pierce Rice, a fruit-seller, 52, Holywell-street,
proved he saw a mob round the opposite window, in
consequence of the defendant talking about the bias-
' phemous placards, which he said he would have taken
down, but upon the last witness saying his master
was not at home, the defendant then said—" I shall
take them out myself." He then deliberately lifted
up the stick and gave the window a good tap, so as
to break it, without, however, doing any further in-
jury ; and having torn down the placard he handed
it to another person in the street, and the defendant
subsequently tore it up. After remaining for some
time asking for the police, that the boy might give
him in charge, as there was no constable at hand, de-
fendant walked away into the Strand. The boy ac-
cordingly followed to look for a constable, and witness
having seen the occurrence, thought it his duty to
come forward and give evidence.
The defendant said he would feel much obliged if
the Magistrate would read the placard.
Mr. Burnaby, the chief clerk, having placed the
fragments together, laid them on the bench for the
Magistrate's inspection.
The defendant assured the Court that the contents
of it were mild comparatively with the others which
were exhibited in the other parts of the window, and
in the interior of the shop, for they were of such an
awful character as to make • the hair stand on end of
any person who read them. He was actuated by a
laudable disgust in the part he had taken in the
matter, and he had no hesitation in declaring he would
have thrashed the master of the house had he met
with him. He was glad at what had happened, as it
would bring the matter to an issue, and particularly
as he saw some poor ignorant persons drinking in
such putrefaction ; yes, it could be called nothing but
a horrible putrefaction, and he considered he was but
doing a duty he owed to the public in destroying such
exhibitions. He was passing by chance on his way to
his father's, and not being able to restrain his feelings
before he committed the act, he was not prepared
with any witness. Whatever the damage was, he
would willingly pay if the Court thought roper, but
he would again assure the Magistrate, that the placard
produced was holy and righteous, compared with the
other which still remained in the shop.
Mr. JARDINE, having read the placard, said he was
not at all surprised at the course the defendant had
taken, and for which -every excuse might be made.
He was exceedingly glad Mr. Bruce had acted in such
a manner, because it helped to bring the matter im-
mediately into Court, for which the public ought to
thank him, as through him there would be no diffi-
culty in bringing the case home to the parties who
published such placards. He hoped Mr. Bruce would
have no objection to lend his assistance in following
up the prosecution, and for what he had done he
would inflict no fine, but direct that he should pay
for the damage he had done.
Mr. Bruce immediately paid the money, and
Mr. JARDINE requested him to mark ihe pieces of
the bill, in order that he might identify them on an-
other occasion.

Mr. Bruce complied with this request, and was
about to leave the Court, when
Mr. JARDINE told him that he had ordered the
money for the windows to be paid into Court, in order
that the proprietor might come and fetch it he dared.
Mr. Bruce said he should have great pleasure in
giving all the assistance in his power, in order that
the ends of justice might be compassed, and having
thanked Mr. Jardine for his kind attention to the case,
he withdrew.