The Sun.
London, England, 1842-10-08 00:00:00

ROGERS AND OTTIERS V. COYLE.

This action was also undefended. The plaintiffs
are veterinary surgeons, and the defendant a gentle-
man of fashion frequenting the clubs at the Wet-end.
The action was brought to recover the sum of
15/. Os. 6d. for medicine and attendance.

Several witnesses were called, who proved the deli-
very of the medicine and the attendance of the plain-
tiff upon the defendant's horses. A veterinary surgeon
deposed that all the charges were most reasonable, and
the Jury returned a verdict for the whole amount
claimed.

The Court was occupied the greater part of the
morning with undefended actions on bills of exchange,
that possessed no feature of interest.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Oct. 7.
SMITH V. PRATT.

This was an action to recover the sum of 161. upon
a bill of exchange.
The bill was produced in Court, and the defendant
pleaded that he did not accept the bill, which was a
forgery.
Mr. John Shiels stated that he had been connected
with the Westminster Loan Society in Adam-street.
He called upon the defendant, who admitted that the
signature to the bill was his handwriting.
Mr. Charles Kerry Nichols, the late manager of
the Adam-street Loan Society, stated that he went
with the last witness to the defendant, and he then
admitted that the bill was signed by him. The insti-
tution with which he was connected had failed, as any
other institution might.
Mr. Westwood addressed the Jury, and said his
client knew no more about the bill than the Learned
Judge. He had, however, no witness to call.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF then summed up
the evidence, and the Jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' GOURT, Oct. 7.
IN RE JAMES STEWART.

This case afforded a painful instance of the pressure
of the law upon the poor man.
The insolvent was described as a labourer. He had
been arrested in the month of March last for a debt
which originally amounted to 1/. 18s., but, after
adopting the cheapest possible means of rendering him
amenable, had been swelled up to 4/. 45., and upon the
decree of the Manor Court, gained at an expense nearly
equal to treble the original debt, was cast into King-
ston gaol, where he remained until this day, living
during the intermediate period upon about 4/. He
was now enabled to appear upon his petition to be dis-
charged, through the intervention of the Association
for the Relief of Pauper Insolvent Debtors.
Mr. Commissioner lIARRIs remarked that this was
another painful proof of the delay and expense inci-
dent to the recovery of small debts. The poor man
had been now almost seven months in prison for a very
small debt, and he should, therefore, order his dis-
charge forthwith.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.
A young man, named William Joseph Darling,
was charged before the LORD MAYOR with having
plucked the feathers from a living fowl in Leaden-
hall-market. Mr. Howard and Mr. Brooks, sales-
men in the market, of excellent character, attended
upon the occasion.
Thomas B. Gibbins, Inspector of the " Animals'
Friend Society," said that having seen in the Times
newspaper paragraphs complaining that persons had
been seen in Leadenhall-market plucking living birds,
he walked round the market to make his observations,
and he saw the defendant pluck three fowls, which
were to all appearance alive ; one of them raised its
head and fluttered.
The LORD MAYOR—Did you examine any of them?
Witness—No. He took care that I should not.
Mr. Howard—My Lord, you will be good enough
to allow me to question this man. We are particu-
larly interested in this subject.
The LORD MAYOR—Certainly. You shall have
fair play.
Mr. Howard—Do you know whether their necks
were broken at the time the young man was plucking
them? Witness—l do not know; but I knew that
I saw one of them draw up its legs and wings during
the process of the plucking.
A policeman stated that the inspector of the Ani-
mals' Friend Society requested him to go:and witness
the plucking of the fowls, and he accordingly went to
the market and saw the defendant with the fowl in
his hand, three parts plucked. The bird drew up its
legs and fluttered.
Mr. Howard—Was the neck of the fowl broken ?
Policeman—lt was. I examined it after it was
plucked, and saw that the neck was broken.
Mr. Howard—l am the employer of the defendant,
and I saw the fowl killed. We always have their
necks broken before a feather is taken from them, and
after the spine is injured, according to the opinion of
medical men, pain is out of the question, although
there may be a muscular movement.
The inspector of the Animals' Friend Society said
that scarcely a moment elapsed between the taking of
the fowls out of the basket and the plucking of them,
so that the natural inference to be drawn was, that
they were plucked alive.
The policeman—The necks were certainly broken.
Mr. Brooks said it was evident that the correspon-
dent of the Times was in error, and he trusted that
as the effect of any paragraph in that paper was very
great, the positive assurance made by the most respect-
able butchers, that there was no real foundation for the
report, would be attended to. They had already been
called monsters and brutes, in consequence of the
paragraphs which had appeared ; and the statement of
a clergyman,
who laboured under misapprehension on
this subject, was calculated to aggravate the public
feeling against them.
The LORD MAYOR said he was convined the Times
would most willingly insert the explanation. He (the
Lord Mayor) was sure, from the respectability of Mr.
Howard and Mr. Brooks, who voluntarily appeared
to vindicate the practice of the market, that the case
was exactly as they represented.
Mr. Brooks—The practice has existed for ages, I
dare say as long as fowls have been brought to mar-
ket. We have long ascertained that with the break-
ing of the neck all pain is at an end.
The defendant was then discharged.
Mr. Nobler said the noise that had been made about