The Sun.
London, England, 1845-09-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

PAL

UR T. g

Syt, 5,

TRA::F? 1:

his vs.is an ac 1611 e it) r-,,covtr th:3
sum of 191, Is. 6d., for editing and abridging the American
edition of the " Mysteries of Paris," and for reading and
correcting the printer's proofs.
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and a set-off.
Mr. Locke and Mr. Beadon conducted the case for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Hawkins appeared for the defendant.
The person who had to do the composition of the work said
he had got the copy for the printers from the plaintiff, and the
proofs were sent to him to correct. He considered one guinea
very reasonable for reading the printer's proofs.
'the son of the last witness proved the delivery of the proofs
to Mr. Cochrane, for correction, and had afterwards seen the
proofs corrected in the office. _

Mr. Mills, the editor of the Sportsman, said he considered
that one guinea a sheet was very reasonable for reading the
printer's proofs, and correcting them.
Mr. Laden, the printer who had done the press work, said
that he had been endeavouring to mediate between the parties,
and that the defendant denied the claim, but offered to pay 71.,
and plaintiff offered to take 101. The edition had been a long
one. He had, on one occasion, used six reams of the plain-
tiff's paper to finish the volume. Mr. Daly gave him an order
from Mr. Cochrane, authorising him to use it. Witness had
accepted a 4t,/. 1311 for plaintiff, which he dishonoured, and Mr.
Daly gave the money to take it up. He had in his possession
paper belonging to the plaintiff much above the value of the
bill, or he would not have accepted the bill. He had a me-
morandum from Mr. Cochrane to keep the paper as a security
for the acceptance.
Miss Cochrane said that the defendant had been at her
father's house and offered 71, for the sake of Mrs. Cochrane.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
131. Is. Ed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MAN SION- HO USE.
A meagre Seotchman, who refused to let his name be known,
in the fear that-it should be conveyed in a defiled condition to
his native country, through the medium of the press, was
brought before the Lord Mayor.
The LORD MAYOR (to the defendant)—Do you persist in
refusing to say who you are ? Defendant—Yes, your Lord-
ship. You will excuse me—l am not inclined to appear in the
newspapers. Will your Lordship prevent the publication of
my name if I mention it.
The LORD MAYOR—I have nothing to do with the publica-
tion of it. I shall call you John Thomas, and I put you down
in that name in my book. Now (to the officer in whose cus-
tody the defendant was) what have you to say against John
Thomas
The policeman said, that as he was passing along on his beat,
he saw the defendant sitting close to the door of a house, the
dog of which was barking violently ; knowing that the animal
was one of great sagacity, his attention was the more particu-
larly attracted to the appearance and condition of the stranger,
whose pockets seemed to be bulged out, and whose clothes had
the marks of whitened walls very palpable upon them. Wit-
ness asked him what he was doing, to which being in a state of
intoxication, he replied, by asking the question—" What's that
to you ?" These words were followed up by language casting
imputation upon the general body of the police, and describing
them as a set of vagabonds, who impertinently interfered with
the affairs of the respectable members of society. Finding that
he was not likely to get a satisfactory account of so strange a
customer, the witness took him to the station-house, but his
introduction there by no means improved his manners or his
respect for the force, and be was detained until six o'clock,
when the in-pector, fancying that the little imprisonment he
had got would operate as a corrective, told him that he was at
liberty to go. The permission, however, had no effect, but
that of exasperating him to the use of still more offensive
language, and it was determined that the Lord Mayor should
'ls appealed to.
The LORD MAYOR asked the prisoner whether he wished to
tay anything ?—The defendant replied, that the policeman had
committed perjury, for although he (defendant) had been drink-
ing, he was perfectly sober when the man walked up to him,
and wanted to know all about him. He certainly considered
that such interference was altogether wrong. He had been
fatigued with walking, and he sat down. Why any body
should question him upon the subject he could not conceive,
and he was resolved not to stand it.
The policeman, in answer to questions from the Lord
Mayor, stated that the bulk in the pockets of the defendant was
occasioned by the p ominence of his wardrobe therein depo-
sited; that in refusing to leave the station-house, in which he
had rested, he violently intimated that his application against
the inspector in the Queen's Bench should be immediately
made, and his whole conduct became troublesome in an ex-
treme degree.
The LORD MAYOR—I fine you five shillings, Mr. John
Thomas, for being drunk.
The defendant—That's not my name.
The LORD MAYOR—Never mind. It will do as well as any
other to go to prison with.
The defendant—l shan't pay the money.
The LORD Mayoa—Then you must go to prison for seven
days.—The defendant was committed.
Elizabeth Evans, a person of very serious deportment, who
had with her a female child, was charged by a policeman.
W. Morris, 419, stated that while he was on duty in a street
near the Mansion-house he saw the prisoner sitting at a ball-
door, apparently very unwell. He asked her what was the matter
with her, and was told by her if she had a drink of water she
would be better. The witness procured her some water, and
at her request left her ; but he kept his eyes upon her move-
ments, and soon found that she managed to fall into fits
when she thought he was not in the way to witness the per-
formance. Upon being convinced that her experimental dis-
order was about to be interfered with, she suddenly recovered,
and said it was all right with her. The witness, however, in-
formed her that she must walk with him to have the advice of
a medical man, who was a good judge of maladies of the sort.
Instead of rejoicing at the prospect of effectual assistance she
slipped out of witness's hands, and was suddenly seized with a
fit .f running, in which she appeared to be every atom as clever
as she had just shown herself to be in fainting. She also
showed that she had as much command of her tongue as of her
heels, for never did witness endure such a shower of disgusting
abuse as she heaped upon him.
The prisoner said she was so beside herself with suffering, that
she really did not know what she said to the policeman, and she
hoped his Lordship would let her go about her business.
The policeman said that the prisoner, although she stated her-
self to be the mother of the child in the justice-room, had
owned in the station-house that such was not the fact; and
witness believed that the infant was hired to assist in carrying
out the delusion.

The Loan MAY OR—I fine you 20s.
The prisoner—I have got no money to pay the fine.
The Loan MAYOR—Then you must go to Bridewell for one
month.—Committed.

QUEEN-SQUARE.
Ann Wright and Mary Ann Jones were placed at the bar
charged with the following daring street robbery.
At a little after twelve on the previous night a tradesman
named Gellman, residing in Yeoman-crescent, Brampton, was
passing Hyde Park-corner, when the prisoner Wright came up
to him and invited him to take a walk with her down Consti,,
tution-hill. He refused, and was in the act of proceeding to-
wards his home when she suddenly threw her arms round his
waist, and before he could extricate himself he found by the
pressure of his guard chain on the back of his neck, that she
had got hold of his watch, which but a minute before was safe
in his waistcoat pocket, and had by a sudden and violent jerk
forced it off the heavy silver guard chain to which it had been
attached. She immediately ran off with the watch, but he
pursued and caught her, when she gave it to the other prisoner,
who was standing with her at the time she accosted the pro-
secutor. Jones darted off at full speed with the watch, but
finding that the prosecutor who had loosed his hold of Wright,
was overtaking her, she threw the watch into the Green-park,
a minute or two before she was captured. The police came up
at the moment, and both prisoners were taken to the station.
The watch, which was a very handsome patent lever one, was
picked up uninjured.
The prisoners pretended that they knew nothing whatever
about the robbery, and, indeed, had never seen the watch.
They were committed for trial at the Central Criminal
Court, for the assault and robbery.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Thomas Brown and Lewis Green were brought before Mr.
Hardwick, charged with having robbed Mrs. Anne Lockyer,
the wife of James Lockyer, Esq , of No. 19, Southampton-
street, Fitzroy-square, of her reticule.
Mrs. Lockyer said she was returning home about four o'clock
the previous afternoon, and when about 20 yards from her own
door, the prisoner Brown ran up to her and cut the string of
her reticule, and ran off with it. The reticule contained two
gold chains, some keys, and about ils. 6d. in silver. Shortly
after the prisoner Brown had committed the robbery be was
stopped by a man, and he then threw the reticule away, and it
was caught by a man whom she believed was the prisoner
Green. The reticule now produced was her property. Her
dress was also cut by the prisoner, in his attempt to get posses-
sion of her reticule.

James Brown, a labouring man, living at 31, Ship-court,
said he was standing at the corner of Fitzroy-square, on
Thursday afternoon, when he saw the prisoner Brown run
towards Mrs. Lockyer, and snatch a reticule from her arm.
Witness pursued the prisoner into Fitzroy-square, and having
caught hold of him, the prisoner threw the bag to the prisoner
Green, who was a few yards behind. Green then ran away,
and witness released Brown and pursued Green, and secured
him after great resistance. Witness had noticed the prisoners
were in company together just before Brown took the reticule.
Richard Savage, a stonemason, said he was at work at the
corner of Southampton-street, when he saw the prisoners in
company together. Brown left Green and followed Mrs.
Lockyer, and immediately afterwards Brown snatched the
reticule from Mrs. Lockyer's arm, and ran off. Witness
followed and secured Brown.
The prisoner Brown said he should reserve what he had to
say for the ears of a jury.
Green denied that he was near the place.
The prisoners were fully committed.
WORSHIP-STREFI T.

A gentleman, whose name did not transpire, and who was
ac:ompanied by his professional adviser, attended before
Mr. Bingham to solicit his assistance under the subjoined
circumstances:—

The applicant, through his solicitor, stated that he was
some time since in possession of a crossed cheque for 23/.,
which had by some means been stolen from him without his
being cognizant of its having disappeared. Upon calling upon
his bankers, about three weeks afterwards, he was much sur-
prised to find that the cheque had been already paid in through
another banking-house, who, it appeared, had received it from
Messrs. Hopkins and Co., linendrapers, in Shoreditch, with
whom be at once communicated, to ascertain the means by
which it had fallen into their hands. He was then informed
that on the evening before the day it had been paid in
at the bankers, a woman who stated her name to be Jane
Williams, made a purchase at the shop of some haber-
dashery articles, and tendered in payment the cheque in
question, representing that she was compelled to proceed
that evening to Gravesend, where her friends were staying,
and as the cheque was a crossed one, and it was then beyond
banking hours, she would be unable to procure cash for it else-
where. There being no reason to doubt the truth of her state-
ment, and as she appeared to be a person of great respectabi-
lity, the cheque was received in payment of her purchase, and
the balance handed to her. The object of the present applica-
tion was to request :that the magistrate would grant either a
warrant or summons to compel the attendance of Mr. Hopkins,
to account for his possession of the cheque, or to ascertain the
proper mode of proceeding to recover its value, as it was quite
clear that the transaction, as far as the banking.hoases were
concerned, was perfectly regular, and in the ordinary course of
business.

Mr. Ettwaitam said he was not at all certain that he would
be justified in granting a warrant or summons under such cir-
cumstances ; and even if he possessed the power of compelling
an explanation by that means, it appeared to him pretty mani-
fest that the only information Messrs. Hopkins would be able
to afford had been already elicited. There could be no doubt,
however, that due caution had not been exercised in the nego-
tiation of a cheque presented in such an irregular manner ; and
it had been decided by the Judges, after elaborate argument in
a case which occurred about sixteen years ago, and to which
Messrs. Hailing, Pearse, and Co. were parties, that the person
sfOooprii:iteosanvuatoliziy
Hreecesihvoiungldsrueceoh
mprmopenedrtythweaspacrlteiaerslyt
orestpoaknesithlee
action.ian counsel
thanked h
eluponthet ematter,
m a
gt a
s t
raas theirfarhis
onlys
attention, remedy
andwas
xp
eby
lc:rheesv.sl
apping their determination to pursue the course he bad ill-
dicated, quitted the Court.