The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-01 00:00:00

UNION-HALL

Yesterday a respectable-looking man, about forty
years of age, named James Hughes, late clerk in the
employ of Mr. John Gostling, of Highbury-house,
Islington, was brought up in custody. The charge
alleged against the accused in the night-constable's
book, into whose custody he was given, stands
thus For having forged an order, purporting to
be in the hand-writing of Mr. John Gostling, directed
to Messrs. Browning and Co., timber-merchants, for
the delivery of a quantity of Memel planks." There
was another charge of a similar nature alleged against
the prisoner, in which it appeared he had sent an-
other fictitious order, purporting to be from his late
employer, to Messrs. Maltby's, by which means he
obtained 15 pigs of lead.
The following evidence was taken against the
accused :—Henry Dearlove, clerk to Messrs. Brown-
ing and Co., timber-merchants of the Commercial-
, road, Lambeth, stated that on Monday a man named
Redbun came to his employers, and delivered the
two orders produced, which were directed to the
firm, and were to the following effect :
" Please load the bearer's waggon with as many Memel
planks as he can take; let them be as near 20 feet long as
you have them ; he will call again, when lie will load with
what he cannot take now, being 100 in all, as I shall re-
quire different quantities for my estate at Hamel!. Please
enter my Hanwell aecount separate from the Highbury."
(Signed) " JOHN GOSTLING."
The next order was as follows :

"Please despatch the bearer as quick as you can, as he has
to go into the country, besides waiting to take in some
trifling articles, after he has loaded with the timber. The
lot you showed me the other day I think are pretty good,
and as they are for a particular purpose, you will please be
particular in the selection. Those of 19 feet long will do
if you have not 20."
The witness said, in consequence of the above
orders, be caused fifty planks, three incites thick,
nineteen feet long, and twelve inches wide, to be
placed in the cart Redbun brought to the wharf.
Redburn, the witness alluded to, stated that on
Monday morning while with his cart on the stand in
Thames-street, at ten o'clock, the prisoner came up
and gave him the orders produced, desiring him to
take them to Messrs. Browning, the timber-mer-
chants, and bring away fifty planks out of the one
hundred he had ordered, and to meet him at the
City-road-bridge. Witness went agreeably to the
instructions, and received from Messrs. Browning's
clerk the number of planks mentioned on production
of the order. The witness having loaded his cart,
then drove off to the City-road-bridge, where the
prisoner was waiting, who directed him to drive
down Charles-street, and unload at a factory in that
street, which was accordingly done. Afterwards
the prisoner told witness to meet him the next day,
at ten o'clock, in Finsbury-square, adding that he
would then pay for the cartage. The witness did
meet the prisoner according to his wish, at the time
and place above mentioned, when the latter was
apprehended.
Mr, Gostling stated, that neither of the orders
produced were written by him, although they bore a
striking similarity to his hand-writing. The_ risoner
had lived with him as clerk, but he had nev l'autho-
rized him to write such orders as those pre u ed:
The magistrate, in committing the prisoner on the
above evidence, told the complainant that in the event
of any technical informality in the indictment on the

trial of this case, upon which the accused might be
acquitted, a detainer might be. lodged against him for
the other charges which might be alleged against him.
A fiery-tempered woman, named Amos, was re-
manded on a charge of having fractured the skull of
another female with a blow of a broom-handle. The
wounded woman now lies in a dangerous statein the
hospital, and her recovery is deemed doubtful.

----- -
LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS COURT, JUNE 30.
BEAUVOIR V. SIMPSON.

This was a bill to compel the defendant to fulfil a
contract into which he had entered for the puccbase
of a certain property.

It appeared from the statements of Mr. BICKER•'
STET!! (the plaintiff's counsel), that in 1818 Dr.
Beauvoir purchased a property, the adept' which
was examined by the defendant, who is a solicitor,
or by his partners. The defendant also advised the
purchase. Dr. Beauvoir died, and his widow (the
present plaintiff) became desirous of disposing of the
property, which in 1828 the defendant- agreed to
purchase for a sum of 4,5001. The defendant paid.
5001. of the purchase-money, but shortly after-
wards, having discovered a defect in the title, he
declined fulfilling his engagement, and refused to
complete the purchase.

On the part of the defendant, it was urged by
Mr. PEPYS, that his client denied having had any
knowledge of the defect in the title at the time when
the property was purchased by Dr. Beauvoir. Not-
withstanding the deeds were examined in the de-
fendant's office, Mr. Simpson declared that he had
no recollection of having personally inspected them
oe advised the purchase. This case was clearly out
of the general rule.
The MASTER of the RoLLs said, there was
nothing to relieve the defendant from the due per-
formance of his engagement. A solicitor was- tot
to take advantage of his client's title: but it was
not merely that—he must be considered to be well
acquainted with the title, and no defect in it could
release him from his engagement. With respect to
the imperfection of the defendant's recollection, he
must be supposed to recollect. Looking at the
entire of the present caseithe judgment of the Court
was in favour of the plaintiff, with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jess SO.
EX-PARTE AN INSOLVENT DEBTOR.
Mr. COMYN moved for a rule nisi to discharge out
of custody a person who had been arrested on an
affidavit for 2,000/. and upwards in respect of a
judgment debt of 3,0001. The ground of the mo-
tion was, that the party had been previously dis-
charged under the Insolvent Debtors' het.—llule
granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNB 30.
KEMBLE V. FARREN.

The argument in this case was resumed to-day.
The question was, whether the sum of 1,0004
which it was agreed between the parties should be
taken to be the amount of the damages to be paid by
either party committing a breach of the agreement,
was to be considered as liquidated damages, or in
the nature of a penalty.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE argued, that where the
parties contracted to do some one given thing,which
was called an individual contract,• the sum mightle
taken to be liquidated damages; but where it -was
intended to enforce the performance of each and
every of divers obligations, or to secure the par ,
ment of a smaller slum of money, then it was to be
taken to be a penalty. Such was the result of the
cases decided on this subject.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE on the other side, sub-
mitted, that it was clearly the -intention of the
parties that the sum of 1,0001. should be paid se the
amount of the damages for such a breach of the
agreement as had here taken place; and that there-
fore the rule for increasing the damage: wain
amount should be made absolute.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE., after the Jude* had
conferred for a short time, observed that as this. was
a point of considerable nicety, 'aid awe. were a
good many roses en the Subject, the Court would
take a short time to consider of it, and exandria-the
cases.