The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. I.
TUCKER V. THE GOVERNOR OF THE CHELSEA WATER

WORKS COMPANY.

This was an action to recover damages for injuries
sustained by the plaintiff's horse, in consequence of
falling into a hole in the highway, occasioned by the
bursting of a leaden service-pipe, supplied from the
Chelsea Waterworks. The Chelsea Waterworks
Company disputed their liability to the plaintiff, on
the ground that the broken pipe belonged not to
them, but to the owner of the house which was
supplied by it. It was agreed, therefore, that the
amount of damages should be ascertained by re-
ference, and that the attention of the Jury should be
confined to the question of liability.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 1.

In an action against the Sheriff of Middlesex for a
false return of nulla bona, a witness was called by
the plaintiff, who stated that he had valued the goods
of a publican at 175/., which he considered would
be their value to an in-coming tenant. Among
these were four butts of porter, which at the present
price charged for that article, were worth 6/. 15s.
each. This valuation was made in February, and a
witness on the part of the defendant proved, that in
March following, he had sold the effects of the pub-
lican under an execution for 45/. 135., and among
other things the four butts of porter before named,
for all of which he obtained no more than 6/. 11s.
The expences charged on this sale were 21/. 125.;
and it was 'attempted to be shown that the,goods
sold for 45/. were the same as those valued at 175/.

Mr. Justice PARK said, he should be sorry if the
goods were proved to be the same. If they really
were so, he must say, that it was most scandalous
and disgraceful to the administration of justice, and
some reform ought to be made in the Sheriff's-office.
The Jury deliberated for a few moments, and then
returned a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages 1101.

MOORE V. CUFF.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for
19/. 17s. 9d. The real questiOu in the cause was,
however, whether the plaintiff ought to be charged
with 141..145., the price of a gun which the de-
fersk!ar .ileged lid had bought of him. In the course
of the cause a great many witnesses, all gun-makes,
were called to prove the value of the gun in-ques,
tion, and therstatid; than it would cost the seller
about ten guineas, but that they should consider 15
guineas' a fair charge to an ordinary purchaser.
lipp.rstred utterly suttiluisited at
this disclosure of the profits of gun-makers.
One of the grounds upon which payment for the
gun was refused was, that the stock had been broken,
when it had been used only a few times 'and-,Wit-
nesses were called to prove that the wood was of 4
very inferior description. rt appeared from their
evidence, that when it happened' that the stock was
found to be defective, or made of a bad matOrial,
it was sent into the country to be made up at a low
price there. '
Mr. justice PARK again expressed his astonish-
mentit the iniquity of this practice. Persons in
the habit of using fire-arms could really never know
whiin they were safe. In the course of his charge
the Learned Judge said the gun-makers ought' not
to sell guns of the inferior description which this
appeared-tcrte. It was attended with evil in every
way, for being sold, at a low rate, it was the means
of• putting guns into the hands of idle persons, and
might, therefore, be considered as instrumental, in a
degree, in the encouragement of poaching.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DEc. 1.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. ♦TKINSON..

This was an information filed by' the Attorney-
General, at the instance of the Commissioners of
Taxes, against the defendant, for having had a'grey-
houndin his possession in the year ending the sth
of April, 1826, without returning it to the assessor
of taxes, whereby he had forfeited a penalty of 501.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. SHEPHERD
conducted the 'case for the Crown, and called three
witnesses, farmers residing in the neighbourhood of.
the defendant (one of them being the assessor of the
parish), who stated that for several years past the
defendant had never been 'without a greyhound in
his possession. In 1825 they frequently islkw both
himself and his son followed by a greyhound ; they
also observed the dog about his premises, where it
appeared perfectly domesticated. The defendant in
that year returned no dog to the assessor, he having
merely sent in a blank return.
The defendant's counsel, after observing upon the
impossibility of relying upon the doubtful testimony
of the witnesses for the Crown, who had only oc-
casionally passed by the defendant's yard, and who,
having seen a,greyhound there in the beginning of
1825, and again m May or June, 1826, might thereby
be led to believe that they had seen it also in that
interval, But to show still further how unsafe it
would be to convict the defendant on their evidence,
he would prove that the greyhound which the de-
fendant bad in the beginning of 1825 was a milk-
white greyhound, and that he had no other whatever
at the time; it was therefore impossible for those
witnesses, if they were in the constant habit, as
they said, of seeing the defendant'4 dog, to be unable
to' tell the jury of what colour it was, a milk-white
greyhound being so uncommon and so remarkable,
that they must have remembered the colour if they
remembered seeing the animal at all. It would be
further proved, that the defendant parted with this
greyhound five or six weeks after the Christmas. of
1824; and had none other of 'any description until
June, 1826, . _ .

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL' in reply, said that the
witnesses on the one side or the other must be guilty
of perjury.
The LORD CHIEF BARON having summed up,
The Jury deliberated for a quarter of an hour,
when they returned a verdict for the defendant.

PREROGATIVE COURT, DEC. 1.
COLVIN V. FRAZER.
Dr. PIIILLIMORR stated, that the party deceased
in this suit was Mr. John Farquhar, of Fonthill, who
died the 6th of July, 1826. Administration had
been granted to the defendant, his nephew, and next
of kin, on the presumption that the deceased had
died intestate. That administration had been re-
voked, and the defendant was called upon to show
cause why a will made in 1814 should not be ad-

mitted to proof. Mr. Frazer, under the circum-
stances of the case, conceived that he ought to call
upon all the parties interested. under that will to see
it propounded, in order to protect himself from mo-
lestation in the possession of the property. There
had been a doubt, however, in the registry whether
a person in his circumstances could call upon personi,
to see it propounded. He (Dr. Phillimore) sub-
mitted the question to the Court's consideration,
which would do what justice required,
Dr.Donsoig, on behalf of the surviving executor
under the will, thought that this question ought not
to have been brought before. the Court ; he, however,
left it to the Court to decree or not.

Dr. PHILLIMORE,_ in reply, stated that Mr. Frazer,
whose interest in the matter was to the amount o!
400,0001., was advised that the course he proposed
to adopt was necessary to his interests.
Sir Joan NICHOLL said, that the inconvenience
of the proceeding, if any, would fall upon the party
applicant. It would be expedient, in a case of this
nature, to call on all parties interested to appear; it
could occasion no prejudice to the adverse party.
The Learned Judge directed the decree to go, and
recommended that it should be in the largest terms,
against all persons in general.

KIRKCUDBRIGHT .V. KIRKCUDBRIGHT.

This was a suit promoted by Lord Kirkcud-
bright, to set aside a will of the late Lord, and
propounded by his Lady, Mary, Baroness Kirkcud-
bright. •
Dr. Lt7siIINGTON, on behalf of his Lordship,
moved the court to admit an allegation, the object
of which was to show that the late Lord and his.
Lady, about the period when the will propounded
bore date, had disagreements and altercations—that
his Lordship had called upon his solicitor, Mr.
Bryant, of Southampton, to prepare articles of sepa-
' ration—that his . Lady had stated the conditions.
which would content her, &e., but Lord Kirkcud-
bright had quitted Southampton without completing
the business. These facts had but recently come to
the knowledge of his party.
Dr. PHILLIMORE and Dr. DODSON, for Lady Kirk-
cudbright, objected to the admission of this allega-
tion, chiefly as being superfluous.
Sir JOHN Nicnou. observed, that the history of
the case might be collected from the allegations
given in. The late Lord made a will on the 3d of
November, 1824, nominating his wife universal
legatee :
.his whole property, amounting to 5,0001.,
,he left to her. Up to that period, they had lived
for many years together on affectionate' terms ; but
at a late period of their cohabitation, Lord Kirk-
cudbright had indulged himself in vicious pursuits,
and had formed a connexion with a cook-maid. That
this was resented by his wife, was not extraordinary;
and in May, 1825, Lord Kirkcudbright quitted his
residence at Southampton with this servant, whose
name was Charlotte Bicknell, and went to. London,
where they cohabited together. In July, 1825, a
further will was made, in which his Lordship be-
queathed the sum of 5001. to Charlotte Bicknell,
for her faithful services in his family, and on account
of the, contumely and aspersions. she had suffered
from Lady Kirkcudbright. during the whole period of
her service; but even in this will he left all the rest
of his fortune to his lady. In August, 1825, he de-
posited this will with his banker, bat afterwards
destroyed it. Under these circumstances, it was
difficult to maintain that the destruction of
this will was not a revival of the former. It
was alleged &it there had been an attempt on
the part" of the wife 'to get from him this will;
but it was admitted that his Lordship returned
home and did cohabit with his wife. A corres-
pondence had passed between them previously, in
which he acknowledged he had acted improperly.
In a letter dated Nov. 1825, he begins " My dear,
dear Mary." In another, of June 26, he speaks of
his great regard for, and anxiety for the comfort of,
his lady. In 1827, he proposed to return and bring
back Charlotte Bicknell; to this. Lady Kirkcud-
bright would not consent, and he eventually returned
without her. He (Sir John Nichol]) would put it
to the party if it was wise to *maintain the intestacy
in favour of Lord Kirkcudbright in the face of these
papers. The act of separation did net carry the
case (in his. opinion) one jot further than the pre-
vious allegations; he thought, therefore, that he
consulted the interests of the Noble Lord himself bv
excluding this allegation; and it .was •the Court's
duty towards the adverse party. not to allow the
cause to be further prolonged. He therefore rejected
the allegation.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MARYLEBONE.— Willitl7/1 _Brett, driver of the
hackney coach No.. BS3, was charged by Miss Trimlett, of
No. 5, Winchester-row, New-road, with unlawfully detain-
ing a box of papers. •
The defendant's coach, was hired on Tuesday night to
take the complainant home from George-street, Hamp-
stead-road. He was to receive Is. 6d. extra for the
carriage of some parcele, of which she gave him a list upon
a card, and he promised to see them put in and delivered
safe. After he had set her down a box containing papers
was missing, it was leaning against one of the doors when
the coach stopped, and in consequence of that circumstance,
the driver, as au apparent act of civility, turned the coach
round, that she might alight from the opposite side with-
out obstruction. The driver said he had lost his list on
the road, and pretended to know nothing of the box. Miss
Titimlett refused to pay the fare until she had made 'her
case known at the Police-office, and desired him to call
the next day for his money, which he neglected to do. On
Wednesday night a violent knock was given at Miss Trim-
left's door. When the door was opened no'one appeared,
but the box was lying upon the step with the lock broken,
and it contained all the papers excepting one of no impor-
tance. As before-mentioned, the driver never called for
his fare, and the lady did not see him again until he came
before Mr. Rawlinson on Saturday to answer the charge.
The driver said he dropped his card at the turnpike-gate,
when he took money from his pocket to pay the toll, and
knew nothing whatever of the box.
The defendant's employer gave him a good character,
the lady withdrew her charge, and the defendant was libe-
rated, after being told to profit by his lucky escape from an
awkward situation, and that his fare was forfeited by his
neglect.
Richard Luscomb, the servant out of , place, who was
robbed and ill-treated in Hyde-park a month ago, on Satur.:
day laid before the Magistrates another anonymous letter,
which he has received, as follows :
cr Sir,—A few days since, a gentleman who represents
himself a friend of yours, called on me, and stated that he
had known, you for several years, but refused to state his
name and address he seemed exceedingly anxious in regard
to your welfare, and said his only motive for secreting his
name, &c. was, he did not wish to have his name brought
into question. Since the commitment of the prisoner to
Newgate, I have received information of four different per-
sons who are coining forward to endeavour to throw your
charge, which I really think will be the case. Now as I
wish you well, I would advise you to let all drop, and not
appear at Hicks's Hall on Monday next, or put a flaw in
the bill. As an officer, I must decline signing my name,
as it may be the means of my losing my situation, by in-
terfering in the matter. Yours, &e. &e."
This letter was written in a disguised hand, like a lawyer's,
and bore New Cut, Lambeth, post-mark.
Mr. HOSKINS and Mr. RAWLINSON recommended the ad-
vice before given him by Mr. GaurviTH, and told him,
after the trial, to hand the letter up to the Judge.

. -
HATTON-GARDEN.—Sophia Stratton; uponwhose
inforination Thomas Nicholls, pawnbroker, No. 43, Gray's-
inn-lane, was lately so many times prosecuted for charging
more interest than the law allows, on Saturday last brought
up William era, a pawnbroker, in Old-street-road, upon
an information of a similar offence ; but Mr. LAINo,- in
the course of the prosecution, having detected her in the
act of deliberately forswearing herself, dismissed the charge.

WORSHIP-STREET.—On Saturday an inquiry took
place, before Mr. BROUGHTON, into the circumstances of a
daring robbery committed on the evening of the sth ultimo,
on the persons of Mr. Skerret and Mr. Johnson, at the
Lion and Lamb public-house, in Golden-lane, a house
which has lung borne a bad character, and known to be
frequented by thieves of the most notorious and desperate
description. Besides the front entrance in Golden-lane,
there is also a back entry, opening
into the alleys in the
rear, than which nothing can be more favourable for the
escape of robbers after any depredation,
the commission of
or when pursued by police-officers. It is, however, alleg-
ed that the house has somewhat improved
under
the pre-
sent landlord. 1 '
' Two powerful men, named Samuel Cotteret and 4ohn
Rovie alias .Lon, Jack, were placed at the bar on Satvr-

day, as principals in -the robbery -in question, and Nlr.
Langston, the landlord, whose conduct in the transaction
was placed in a questionable shape by evidence given at
previous.exaininations, appeared on summons.
Mr. Skerret, a potato-merchant residing in Whitecross-
street, stated, that about ten minutes or a quarter-past six,
he and his friend Mr. Johnson, who have both been
licensed victiallers, and had known Mr. Langston in the
business, went into the Liop and Lamb to take some re-
freshment. Mr. Langston \vas making some alteration in
the premises, by taking away a part of the tap-room to
increase the sire of his bar, and took the complainants into
the tap-room, to show them the works in progress. While
the witness was there, an altercation took place between
a stone-mason and the prisoner Rowe, or " Long Jack,"
as he is generally called ; and the latter, turning to the
witness, charged him with having used some offensive
words, and instantly struck him a violent blow between
the eyes, which knocked him down. The men present
immediately gathered round kim " as thick as bees," pre--
tending to take his part, and assisted in picking him up.
When he was got into the bar again, Mr. Langston began
brushing kis clothes, and observing that the pocket of his
trousers was hanging out, turned it in for him. He found,
when he came a little to himself, that he. had been robbed
of his hat, his watch, and 2s. 6d..

Mr. Johnson deposed, that he was standing at the tap-
room door when Mr. Skerret was knocked down, and while
endeavouring to get him out of the, room, he also was rob-
bed of his watch, with two gold seals, and a sovereign.
When he discovered his lose, he went back towards the
tap-room, bur the whole of the party were then gone out
of the house by the back way, and the pot-boy had locked
the door after them.

Mrs. Skerret being sworn, stated, that in the course of
the evening Mr. Langston called at her house, and said
that the property lay between Sam CottereCand Long
Jack, that the latter had been at work for him upon a job,
for which he was to be paid lOs., but that in consequence
of the robbery he would only pay him 53. at present, and
the remainder when the property was restored, adding, that
if Skerret would be quiet, and give something, he (Lang-
ston) would himself stand some gallons of beer, and the
property might be got back.—This statement of the land-
lord's proposition was contSrmed by three other witnesses.
The MAGISTRATE, after some further inquiry, said, Mr.
Langston had, by his conduct made himself a participator,
and should be sent to trial with the others.

Mr. Langston protested his innocence, and asked to be
admitted to bail, saying he could produce witnesses to clear
himself.--Some of the officers, upon inquiry, said the house,
had certainly improved in character under Mr. Langston.
The MAaisra ATE at length admitted him to bail, for
his appearance here next week, himself in 1001. and two
sureties in 50/. each.—The others were remanded.

Saturday, Elizbeth Cliffe and Eleanor Edwards were
placed at the bar of this office before T. TWYFORD, Esq.,
charged by Martineau, Esq., of Stamford-hill, with►
felony.

The prisoner Cliffe underwent a short examination before
Mr. BROUGMTOII, on Wednesday, when Eleanor Edwards,
who appeared as a witness on her behalf, was, on account of
some supposed prevarication in her evidence, removed from
the witness-box to the bar, as an accomplice. On Satur-
day both the prisoners were brought up for final examination.
Mrs. H. Martinea*, wife of the prosecutor, stated, the
prisoner Cliffe had been cook in the family for the last three
nynths. In consequence of suspicion that a system of rob-
bery was carried on in the house, a close watch was set for
its detection, and on Tuesday evening she was called by her
daughter into the hall, where they found the cook clandes-
tinely going out with a hand-basket apparently filled with
something. She was detained, and on examination of the
contents of the basket, they were found to be two slices of
cold beef, two small pieces of yellow soap, a cold potato,
and about 21b. of candles. - A constable was immediately
sent for, and prisoner given into custody. The slices of
meat were afterwards matched with a large piece in the
pantry, and found :exactly to fit ; 'the soap was also rut
precisely in her usual way of cutting soap for the servants,
and the candles were " like those used in the house."

John Martineau, Esq. said, that the prisoner Cliffe, on
being detected, confessed her. guilt, and begged to be par-
doned. He objected, from a persuasion that he had been
robbed in that way for a considerable time. One 'of the
slices of meat was worth 9d., and the other 4d., the soap
sd., and the candles is. 4d.
Thomas Atkins, a constable, was called in to take the
prisoner, Cliffe into custody. She fell on her knees before
her mistress, imploring pardon, and exclaiming, " What
shall I do !" [This witness produced the property, and
held up, suspended between his finger and thumb, a thin
cut of beef, certainly not the most inviting for 9d., while
the magistrate seemed to fumble his pockets, as if in search
of his handkerchief.]
William Bray, a country-looking boy, said, that daring
onialneinedbeßeirioownne,rraaandidas from'
isoto
the last three
ner months hew whoman
theti prisonerE'd' wards, who lived in the same house, near
Stamford-hill. Sometimes he took dripping, and brought
back some halfpence for it, at others he carried some broken
meat, and once he remembered looking into the little
basket, and seeing a slice of pudding.
The prisoner Cliffe, in her defence, said, that she had
permission to give away the broken meat, and dispose of
the dripping. She was not going out secretly, but had re-
ceived permission, and had not the slightest idea that her
taking a slice of cold meat and a cold - potatoe for her
sister's supper, would he even thought a crime.
Mrs. Martineau shook her head.

Prisoner Edwards said that she. certainly had frequently,
bought dripping of Cliffe; but she,did "not know it was;
not allowed. As to the soap and the candles she bought
them for Cliffe eight months before, from a chandler's
shop-woman named Garrett, at Stoke-Newington.
' Graves, an officer of the establishment, stated that he
had known the prisoner Edwards for 25 years, as a most
exemplary good character.
Mr. TWYFOILD observed, that no specific charge had
been made out against Edwards; he should therefore libe-
rate her. With regard to Cliffe, the articles were sworn
to by the prosecutors, and she must go before a Jury.
She was accordingly fully committed for trial.
UNION-HALL.—On Saturday a man named John
Austin, and a woman with whom he cohabits, named
Mary Giles, were brought before the sitting Magistrate,
R. J. CHAMBERS, Esq., charged with passing counterfeit
money.—The prisoners were fully committed.
Joseph Smith, a bookbinder, residing in Kennington-
place, Was brought up under the authority of a warrant,
for committing an assault on Harriet Frankham, a girl 16
years of age, who was bound apprentice to him by the pa-
rish of Lambeth.

Mr. SWABEY reprobated the conduct of the defendant,
remarking, that =thing could justify him in striking a
girl of 16. The Magistrate then sent for one of the
Lambeth overseers, and it was ultimately decided that the
girl's indentures should be cancelled, and that the defend-
ant should be prosecuted by the parish for the assault on
the complainant.