The Sun.
London, England, 1829-10-28 00:00:00

SURREY SESSIONS, OCT. 27.

William Evans, late a groom in the service of
Mr. Davidge, Proprietor and Manager of the Roya.
Coburg 'I heatre, was indicted for embezzling aw]
converting to his own use 401. 25., the property o
his master. _ _

The facts proved against the prisoner were
these :—He was intrusted with a cheque of 401.
25., to take to a Mr. Sheppard, to get it cashed.
He took his master's horse, obtained the money for
the cheque, and absconded. The horse was returned,
and found in the stable the fallowing day.—Verdict,
Guilty,
Mr. Davidge recorOmended Lim to mercy, as he
believed it was his first offence.
The CHAIRMAN sentenced him to be transported
for seven years.

KILMARNOCK, OCT. 21 . —Trade here, we
are happy to observe, offers symptoms of permanent im-
provement. In some sorts of manufacture there is a de-
cided change for the better, in others the change is not so
great, but all are at work, and the general appearance of
matters, in the opinion of those best able to judge, is, that
we may now reasonably count on a gradual and steady
, advance,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OcT. 27.
SAINSBURY V. CRAMP AND ANOTHER.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for
3001., of which the defendants were the acceptors.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the plain-
tiff was a bookseller. The action was brought
against the defendants, Messrs. Cramp and Crowdy,
upon their acceptance. The drawer of the bill, Mr.
Henry Leigh Hunt, of the late firm of Hunt and
Clark, had purchased of the plaintiff, Mr. Sains-
bury, some copies of a book called Phillips's Sylva
Florifera, the trade price of .which was 15s. 9d. a
copy, but Mr. Sainsbury had let Mr. Hunt have
them at 135.9 d. The totaramount was 1841. Os. 8d ,
and for that sum Mr. Hunt gave his note of hand,
which became due on the 28th of December last.
On the 27th, Mr. Hunt called on Mr. Sainsbury,
and stated that he should not be able to pay the
bill unless he (Mr. Sainsbury) could discount a bill
for 3001., which he produced to him. This was the
bill in question. It was dated the 16th of Decem-
ber, and was payable at four months. Mr. Sains-
bury agreed to discount the bill, and drew out an
account, in which he debited Mr. Hunt with
5/. 2. Bd., the discount, and also the 1841. Os. Bd.,
the amount of the trite of hand, and paid him, in
cash, the balance of 1101. 16s. Bd. The account
thus drawn out, was signed by both parties, in the
presence of a person whom Mr. Sainsbury had re-
' quested to witness the transaction, having some ma-
, son to distrust Mr. Hunt. This was the transac-
tion connected with the bill for 300/., which he
would now put in and read.
The bill was dated the lfith December, 1828,
drawn by Henry Leigh Hunt upon, and accepted
by, the defendants, payable four months after date,
endorsed by H. L. Hunt, to Hunt and Clark, and
by them to the plaintiff.
Mr. DENMAN, for the defendants, said, that his
Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, had not let
the Jury into all the secrets of this case. He would,
therefore, detail to them the circumstances, and they
would then see that his clients had a good defence
on the ground of usury. The Learned Counsel
then stated the facts as they appear in the subjoined
evidence for the defence.

Mr. Henry Leigh Hunt, examined by Mr. MAN-
NING—I was a partner in the house of Hunt and
Clark, booksellers. On the 27th of December last,
we had a note of hand falling due for 1841. odd,
which we were not able to meet. lin consequence
made application to the plaintiff to discount three
bills, one for 3001. (the bill which is the subject of
the present action), and two others, one for 751.,
and the other for 76/. 125., the acceptances of
George Wood. I offered to let the 1841. note,
which was in the hands of the plaintiff's bankers, go
in part of the discount. My interview with the
plaintiff was in the morning. The plaintiff said he
would go into the city and see what he could do.
By appointment he called on me in the afternoon,
and told me the best he could do would be to give
me a little more than 100/., and books to the value
of 1511. 125., and take up our own note for the
184/. I agreed to this after some discussion as to
the terms. He assured me the terms be had men-
tioned were the best he could get from his friend
who was to advance the money ; that the books
were not his own with the exception of one of them
—not the principal—and that he should gain no ad-
vantage by the transaction. He brought with him
the list of books now produced. As I did riot my-
self know the market valudeof the books, I asked him
if he could assure me that they were worth all or a
great part of the money. He assured me that they
were. We were not retail booksellers, and had not
sold any of these books at our shop. The books
were afterwards delivered to us, and remained in
our possession up to the time of our bankruptcy, in
April last. We "lever sold any of them, and I be-
lieve none of them have since been sold. I now
know the general value of them from having heard
the subject talked of.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—
The list produced is in . the hand-writing of the
plaintiff's clerk. The plaintiff brought it to me on
the 27th of December. To the best of my recollec-
tion and belief this is the identical paper. It was
at No. 4, York-street, Covent-garden, that I got
the 100/. odd on the 27th of December. Nobody
was present. George Wood, the party to the two
bills of 751. and 761. 125., has become a bankrupt.
The plaintiff, Mr. Sainsbury, is a creditor of ours,
and has proved under the commission. I have not
yet obtained my certificate. No dividend has been
made. There has not been time for it. There is
property of ours available for a dividend, consisting
of copyrights, stock of printed books, and book
debts. My age is 27. I was in partnership with
Mr. Clark from July, 1925, till April last. Debts
to the amount of about 15,0001. have been proved
under our commission. A great many of them are
liabilities on bills. Myself and partner had a capi-
tal of about 3,000/. when we began business.
The list of books referred to was then put in and
read, their value, it appeared, had been considerably
overrated.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs—
Damages, 307/. 10s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OM 27.
FOSTER AND OTHERS V. CHARLES.

In this action, the plaintiffs, who are extensive
tea-dealers in the city, sought to recover damages
from the defendant, who is a soap-boiler, in conse-
quence of the loss they sustained by the defalcation
of a young man named Jacque, whom they had
employed as a commission-agent at Manchester on
a representation of the defendant as to his character
and circumstances, which representation turned out
to be untrue.

The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL

DREADFUL DISTRESS.--Yesterday three lads,
from fourteen to sixteen years of age, in a most de-
plorable state of destitution, being almost literally
stark naked, not one of them having even the smallest
particle of a shirt, were placed at the bar, charged
by Mr. Brownjohn, a baker in Field-lane, with hav-
ing stolen a loaf.
Mr. Brownjohn stated that the tallest boy came
into his shop about eight o'clock the evening before,
and took a half quartern loaf off his counter, which
he brought out to the door, where the other two
were waiting for him, and they all began to devour
it with the greatest voracity. They did not attempt
to run away when he followed the boy who took
the loaf into the street, but appeared quite regardless
of every thing but satisfying their hunger. lie gave
them in charge to an officer, principally in pity for
their dreadful situation. Besides which, the prac-
tice of poor perishing creatures coming into his shop
and taking bread to satisfy their hunger, was become
so frequent of late that he could not allow it to
continue.

The prisoners said they belonged to parishes in
Middlesex, the other said he was born in Corfe
Castle. They had all been for some time support-
ing themselves by holding horses, or carrying loads
in the market, by which they got as much as bought
them food, and they slept on the benches in the
market ; but they were not able to buy themselves
clothes, and when they became so naked, no one
would employ them, and they were ready to die of
hunger when they stole the loaf to save their lives.
The sad story, and still sadder appearance of the
youthful sufferers, excited universal commiseration.
Mr. Alderman THORPE said they certainly should
not be allowed to perish of hunger in the streets of the
city of Londnn, and ordered them to be taken care
of, and inquiry made to ascertain their several pa-
rishes.