The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUICE 17.
The Court was occupied for nearly six hours with
the trial of an action, " Ikins v. Brook," on a gua-
rantee given by the defendant to the plaintiff, Jona-
than Ikins, to ►ndemnify the latter against any liabi-
lities he might have incurred on account of his bro-
ther John a bankrupt. The case involved
details relating to matters of account between the
parties and other transactions of no public interest.
A verdict was found for the plaintiff for 1,9651. 12s.

JONES AND ANOTHER V. HUNTER AND OTHER..
This WaR an action on two bills of exchange for
3,0001., and 2,3031., drawn at Calcutta, in the year
1828. The defendants, James Hunter, jun., Wil-
liam Hunter, and David Cannon, were sued as the

acceptors.
A verdict was taken for the full amount claimed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 17.

The Court was occupied during the greater par
of the morning with undefended causes.

PRINCE V. LAY AND WIFE.

This was an action of assault. The plaintiff, at.
,he time, was a prisoner within the rules of the Fleet
Prison, and about to take the benefit of the Insolvent
Act on the following day. He went on the even-
ing in question, in company with his attorney, his
attorney's clerk, and a creditor, to a public-house -in
Fleet-lane, of which the defendants are the pro-
prietors, for the purpose of settling some accounts.
Whilst there they drank some half dozen glasses of
brandy and water. When the plaintiff asked to pay
the reckoning, he found seven glasses were charged
for, although, as he thought, only five had been drank.
An altercation ensued, when, according to the tes-
timony of his witnesses, Mrs. Lay caught hold of
him, dragged the hat from his head, and gave him a
slap in the face. For 065 assault he brought his
action.
For the defence two witnesses were called, who
swore that the plaintiff's hat was knocked off in the
bustle, but so far from Mrs. Lay slapping his face,
she remained behind her bar all the time. One of
the witnesses, an extremely singular roan in his look
and manner, while under cross-examination by Mr.
Serjeant Wilde, kept every now and again winking
at the Learned Sedeant, to the great amusement of
the Court. He said he had been a lieutenant of
marines until about three years ago, when " his com-
mission parted from him," but he declined to tell how.
He then became a mercantile clerk until about five
months ago, since when be had been " vegetating on
his own property."--(Laughter.)—The remainder
of his cross-examination was in the same peculiar
style, the effect of which was very much heightened
by the excessively ludicrous expression which he
threw into his countenance every time the Learned
Serjeant put a question to him, so much so, that
even his Lordship was unable to refrain from laughter
whilst he continued in the box.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Dama-
. ges, 40s.

OLD BAILEY, JUNE 17.

Edward Marielly, aged 25, and Henry Jubile
Conway, 23, were indicted for forging and uttering
a cheque, for 1001., with intent to defraud Messrs.
Drummond and Co. the bankers, of Charing-cross.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty of uttering
the cheque knowing it to have been forged.
The Court, and the avenues leading to it, were
crowded at an early with weavers from Spitalfields,
anxious to hear the expected trial of five of their
body, which was appointed to come on this morning.
At tun o'clock, John Chord, aged 55, Benry
Dowsett, 26, Samuel John Ames, 30, William Joseph
Muckland, 28, and Benjamin Stone, 27, were placed
at the bar, and indicted under the Act 7 and S
Geo. IV. cap. 30, sec. 3, for wilfully and maliciously
destroying certain silk goods in the loom, of the
value of 20/. the property of Messrs. Stephen Wil-
son and Co. and of Messrs. Francis and John Giles.
To this indictment they pleaded " not guilty."
By the 3d section of the hbove Act, the offence
of maliciously cutting and destroying goods in pro-
cess of manufacture is punishable on conviction at
the discretion of the Court, by transportation for
life, or for a term of not less than seven years, or by
imprisonment for four years, and public whipping.
On the prisoners being ranged at the Int.,
Mr. ADOLPHUS understood it to be the wish of
their masters, on the present occasion, not to try the
indictments against the prisoners, but to suffer them
to depart the Court on their entering into their own
recognizances to appear to answer the charges against
them if called upon.
Mr. ALLEY, for the prosecution, consented to Cie
application.
The COMMON SERGEANT hoped they would leave
the bar with feelings of gratitude to their employers,
and a disposition of mind which would effectually
restrain them from the commission of any excesses
in future. " You are now discharged."
The prisoners bowed very respectfully to the
Court and retired. The termination of the business
seemed to diffuse general satisfaction throughout the
Court. They subsequently entered into their own
recognizances to keep the peace for two years.
William Creane, a respectable-looking young man,
apprentice to a cabinet-maker in Tottenham-court-
road, was placed at the bar, upon an indictment
charging him with stealing a silk pocket-handker-
chief from the person of George Gwynette, Esq.
The prosecutor stated, that about ten o'clock on
the night of the 10th inst., he was walking arm in
arm with a friend of his through Sydney's, alley,
Leicester-fields, when his friend informed him that
a fellow had picked his pocket. Witness turned
round and observed the handkerchief lying upon the
ground, and the prisoner standing near it. He at-
tempted to seize him, but he succeeded in getting
away. Witness pursued and came up with him in
Coventry-street, he struggled to get away, but did
not, and he gave him into the custody of the watch-
man.

man,

The COMMON SERGEANT—Did you feel the ban
kerchief leave your pocket ? Witness—No, I did
not, Sir; 1 should not have known it, had not my
friend named it to me.
William Alcock, the watchman, proved taking
the prisoner into custody at the desire of the prose-
cutor.
The prisoner handed in a written defence, which,
among other things, stated as follows :--" As I was
passing through Sydney's-alley on the night in
question, I saw two gentlemen before me very much
intoxicated ; one, who gave his name George
Gwynette, turned round and struck me a violent
blow in the mouth, which knocked me down ; he
then commenced kicking me, and gave me into the
custody of a watchman. On our way to the cage
he began beating me again, and his conduct was so
boisterous from drinking, that the night constable
ordered him to be locked up, and not till then did
the gentleman charge me with a robbery."
Mr. Gwynette was again called, and asked if he
had been drinking on that evening ?—Mr. Gwynette
admitted that he had been drinking.
The COMMON SERGEANT—And were you locked
up in the watch-house for being in a state of intoxi-
cation ?—Mr. Gwynette said it was true lie was
locked up.
The COMMON SERGEANT—You cannot swear the
prisoner stole your handkerchief ? Mr. Gwynette—
I cannot, my Lord.
Mr. Carter—l had also been drinking with Mr.
Gwynette on the evening in question.
The COMMON SERGEANT—Then, Sir, being in
liquor, can you take upon yourself to swear that the
prisoner is the man who took the handkerchief from
your friend's pocket ? Witness (after some hesita-
tion)—l certainly should not like to swear that I
clearly saw him do it. .
The COMMON SERGEANT therefore ordered his
acquittal.
A verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly returned,
and the young man left the Court with a host of re-
spectable persons, his friends.
The prosecutor and his witness were refused their
expences.