The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-12 00:00:00

LEVY V. PYNE.

This was an action upon a promissory note of Count
D'Orsay's, to the amount of 4201., made payable to
Messrs. Pyne and Richards, solicitors and money-
scriveners. It appeared that the bill on its arrival at
maturity had been dishonoured ; upon which the
plaintiff; who is a Sheriff's officer, and an extensive
bill discounter, issued process, and ultimately obtained
judgment. After various negotiations between the
parties, the plaintiff consented to take the present bill
in lieu of judgment ; and it was to recover the amount
of this bill that the action was now brought. The
allegation on the part of the defendants was, tha
the bill had been signed by the defendant Pyne without
he authority of his partner Richards.
Mr. Platt and Mr. Humfries appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Kelly for the defendants.
Two sons of the plaintiff proved that there had
been various bill transactions between their father and
the defendants, and that Pyne had frequently attached
to those bills the name of the firm.
Charles Lewis, the attorney in the case, stated that
the promissory-note had been received from Pyne.
He had brought the action against Pyne and Richards
and received judgment. He was pressing for payment,
and was threatening to take the three parties to the
bill in execution of the judgment. He was, however, in-
duced to accept the present bill in lieu of the judgment
against them. The bill was brought to him by Fyne;
but he had seen Richards the day after, who expressed
his gratification that the matter had been so settled.
Upon hearing this statement, the Counsel fi r the
defendants intimated that they should press the case
no farther, as it clearly showed that Richards was a
consenting party to the arrangement that had been
made. A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff for
the 4201.

A further verdict was entered for the plaintiff in
the sum of 8201., the amount of another promissory
note ; the evidence, which was not entered into, being,
it was understood, exactly the same as in the other case

SECONDARIES' COURT, IVov. 11.
Mr. Secondary JAMES sat in the Court of Queen's
Bench, at Guildhall, this morning.

WILLETT AND OTHERS U. RAIN.

This action was brought for the recovery of a quar-
ter's rent, due under the following circumstances.
A gentleman of the name of Lichfield was in the pos-
session of certain premises in Bethnal-green. These
premises were let to the defendant, and subsequent to
the tenantcy mortgaged to:the plaintiffs. Subsequently
to this the mortgagee became bankrupt, and then the
plaintiff served a notice on the defendant, calling upon

him not to pay any more money to Mr. Lichfield, but
to pay the rent to the plaintiffs. This he neglected to
do, and this action was brought to recover the amount.
The defence to the action was, that the defendant
had paid the rent to the assignees under the bank-
ruptcy of Mr. Lichfield.
Verdict fur the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
Add to Secondaries.
HOGGINS AND OTHERS V. GORDON AND SON.

This was a writ of inquiry, the acti',n being for
.911. 195., the costs of an award in a case of arbitration.
Mr. Peacock appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr.
Bovill for the defendants.

The plaintiffs and defendants in this case are mer-
chants in the City of London. In the year 1840, an
action was commenced by the defendants against a'
Mr. Gawen, who had since become bankrupt. The
action was for 25,0001., and the case was referred to
arbitration. The plaintiffs were appointed to arbitrate
between the parties ; and it was for the costs of this
arbitration that the present action was brought. There
were seven meetings held for the purpose of investi-
gating the accounts, and no meeting lasted less than
four hours, and on one occasion the meeting lasted
upwards of ten hours, owing to the complicated na-
ture of the accounts. The claim of the defendants
was reduced to 4,0001., and the award had never been
delivered up to them, as they refused to pay the costs
of the reference. The accounts consisted of accommo-
dation bills, given by the defendants to Gawen, and
great trouble was taken by the arbitrators in the exa-
mination of the vouchers.
Mr. Blount, a large shipowner, was called to prove
that the charges for the arbitration were reasonable.
He could not consider 10/. 10s. too much for a whole
day for each arbitrator. When he had attended ap.
bitrations, he had charged 21. 2s. for two hours.
Mr. Warrener, the landlord of the George and
Vulture Tavern, was called to prove that the meet-
ings held by the plaintiff were very protracted. The
tavern bill, the use of the room, waiters, coffee, and
dinner was 101.
Mr. Frederick Vellings, the attorney who drew up
the award, stated that his bill came to 171. 2s. 2d.
He thought the charges for the arbitration were rea-
sonable.—This was the case for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Bovux addressed the jury, and contended that
the charge was most exorbitant. Most of the time
had been wasted by the arbitrators in conversation and
drinking coffee, and he would put witnesses into the
box to prove that 451. or 501. was a fair remuneration
for the services of the plaintiffs.
He then called several witnesses, who considered two
guineas for each sitting quite sufficient.
The Jury, after consulting a short time, returned
a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages 95/.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SLOGGETT V. VIANT. _ _

SIR—As there is an error in your report of this case
before the Vice-Chancellor yesterday, I trust you will
rectify the same. The name of the cause is gloggett
v. Viant, and not Brjjant, as your Reporter has it.
But the most material error is the assertion that Mr.
Bethell's motion was granted, whereas the contrary
is the fact, his motion for security for costs having
been by the Vice-Chancellor dismissed with costs.
I remain your most obed'ent servant,
JOHN YONGE, Plaintiff's Solicitor,
Nov. 11, 1842. 20, Tokenhouie-yard.

Several Greek manuscripts have just been received
at the Bibliotheque du Rol, from M. Mynas, who has
been charged by the Minister of Public Instruction
with scientific researches in Greece and Asia Minor.
Amongst the manuscripts just received are one by
Theodore Lascaris, on natural philosophy, a commen-
tary of Michael of Ephesus, on the metaphysics of
Aristotle, two very correct Greek lexicons, three al-
ready known works of Aristophanes, and a fine MS.,
which appears to be of the 14th century.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.
A young man, named George Fox, who has been
examined several times upon charges of embezzlement
alleged to have been committed upon his employers,
Messrs. Johnson, Bulman, and Johnson, of Watling-
street, and who has been out upon bail, appeared for
final examination before the Lord Mayor.
Mr. Chambers appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Clarkson for the defendant.
Mr. Chambers stated that the defendant was con-
fidentially employed by Messrs. Johnson and Co. as a
warehouseman. The principal business of the prose-
cutors was wholesale, but they occasionally did retail
business, and the rule of the house was, that every
clerk who took money, should enter the same in a
rough book, with the letters R.M., to show that it was
a ready-money transaction. It was also the duty of
the clerk to carry the money to the cashier, who made
an entry in the cash-book, so that there should be no
question as the fact of the entry. The prosecutors
had ascertained that in five or six instances the de-
fendant had received money which he had neither en-
tered in the rough book, handed to the cashier, nor in
any way accounted for. The defendant had even en-
tered credit transactions with parties whose ready-
money transactions he had not at all entered. The
prosecutors, who did not know to what extent depre-
dations were carried on by their servants, were deter-
mined in every case to investigate to the extreme, and
to inflict exemplary punishment wherever they found
guilt to be be established.
Catherine Johnson, cook to Messrs. Johnson, Bul-
man, and Co., deposed that she purchased of the de-
fendant three collars in the month of April, and paid
him thirteen shillings for them in the kitchen. She
received from him a bill of parcels, but it had neither
date nor receipt to it.
Mr. John Johnson, a partner in the house of John-
son and Co., stated that he examined the rough book
kept by the defendant, but found no entry of the
sum or sums alluded to by Catherine Johnson in it.
Upon looking at the bill of parcels produced by the
last witness, he said he believed it to be in the hand-
writing of the defendant, .but could not swear to
that fact.

Mr. W. Rutty, principal cashier in the employment
of Messrs. Johnson and Co., stated that he had ex-
amined the cashier's book to see whether the entry of
the thirteen shillings appeared as paid over in April,
but found no entry of such sum.
Mr. William Bandfield stated that he was in the
house of Messrs. Hodgkinson and Co., Piccadilly.
About the 30th of June he bought for his employers,
of the defendant, at the house of Messrs, Johnson and
Co., goods to the amount of about 3/. odd shillings. It
was a credit transaction. He bought at the same time
a collar, on his own account. It was brought up to
him at Hodgkinson's, and he paid the messenger 10s.
for it. 'Witness here produced a collar, which he said
was the one he purchased. He had seen the collar at
the warehouse when he called, and he observed the
defendant take it from a box under the counter. Wit-
ness did not think the defendant gave him an invoice,
for he could not find one, and he always preserved
any he received.
Mr. Clarkson handed the collar to the witness, and
asked him whether it was a French or an English
collar ? Witness—lt is a French collar.

vV
Mr. Clarkson—Are you sure it is the collar you
purchased of Messrs. Johnson ? Witness—l am ;
My wife has worn it. It is the identical collar, but it
was without lace when I purchased it.
Mr. Clarkson—Mr. Johnson, do you sell French
collars ? Mr. Johnson—No; we have a Scotch
article very like the French.
Michael Fowler, porter to Messrs. Johnson and Co.,
stated that he received the ten shillings from Mr.
Bandfield, and paid them over to the defendant.
The LORD MAYOR—Is there any one present, who
can certainly say whether the article is French ?
Mr. Bandfield, the witness, said he could swear
that it was French. When first collars of this kind
were brought over from France, they sold for from
355. to 40s. each, but it was now an old fashion.
Mr. Johnson did not know how any one could
swear to that fact. _ _

William Provant, a commercial traveller in the ser-
vice of Messrs. Johnson and Co., said, that wishing
to make his sisters a present, he applied to the defend-
ant, and purchased of him at the warehouse two black
Brussels capes, for which he paid him the sum of
3s. 6d. each. _ _ _

John Morris, a porter at Messrs. Johnson and Co.'s,
stated that he purchased of the defendant five collars,
for which he paid him 10s. 9d., but (lid not take any
bill of parcels. The defendant asked him if he wished
for one, but he replied that he did not require one.
James Pitt, a commercial traveller in the service
of Messrs. Smith and Thompson, of Watling-street.
In June or July last he purchased of the prisoner
three collars, for which he paid two shillings and six-
pence. He did not know whether he received a bill
of parcels. In September last he, purchased another
collar, for which he paid the defendant six shillings,
and at the same time received a bill of parcels, which
he had lost or mislaid.
John Flint, embroiderer of cambric and muslin,
stated that he had a credit account at the warehouse
of the prosecutors. On the 28th of September he
called at the warehouse, and purchased of the defen-
dant goods to the amount of 271. 125., on credit, and
took the invoice, which he produced. At the same
time he purchased of the prisoner a French cambric
child's cap, for which, to the best of his belief, he paid
the defendant cash, but received no invoice or bill of
parcels for it. The price of the cap was ss. 6d. This
witness spoke of other purchases which he made of
the defendant, but it could not be collected, from all
he said, whether he had, or had not, paid for the
articles.
Henry Emery, a warehouseman, in the service of
Messrs. Johnson and Co., stated that he lived on the
premises, and was employed in the same department
in which the defendant was engaged. On the 28th of
September, he was present when the last witness
had some goods on credit. In the evening Mr. Flint
came in to take away with him the goods, and witness
left him and the defendant together, and subsequently
was informed by the defendant that Mr. Flint had
purchased a five and sixpenny cap, and paid for it.
Witness was afterwards present when Mr. Flint pur-
chased another article, and paid the defendant for
it, and also when Provant purchased and paid for a
Brussels cape.
Mr. John Johnson said that the prisoner had been
in the service of the firm about three years as a wan-
houseman. It was part of the defendant's duty, when
he made any sales for cash or on credit, to enter, or
cause to be entered in a book, called the journal, the
particulars ; and when he had sold any thing for cash,
it was his duty to enter it with the initials R. M.,
meaning ready money. Witness had carefully gone
over the journals and the cash-book, and found no
entries of the remaining articles referred to as pur-
chased for cash by the preceding witnesses. The
goods purchased by Mr. Flint on credit were duly
entered. Witness never received any of the sums
referred to, nor did he believe that the sums, or any
part of them, had been received by either of his
partners.
Mr. A Hagen, one of the cashiers of the house, to
whom monies received in the business ought in due
course to be delivered, said that the prisoner had never
paid to him any of the sums alluded to.
Another cashier stated to the same effect.
A City policeman, who apprehended the defendant,
said the defendant observed that he should not attempt
to get away if
.Mr. Johnson was determined to pro-
secute.

The witnesses were all bound over, and the prisoner
was declared to be committed for trial. lie was,
however, admitted to be at large upon bail, himself to
the amount of 2001. and two sureties to the amount
of 1001. each.

John Illa AmßidYdlLe_Eagßeod
eu e
with
t o b give
NanEd.most respectably
g his
obat
ad
idareeds
goods, s
pdlraecsseeddat
mane
b awrth:hcoh charged
from various tradesmen under false pretence
Thomas Hart, hairdresser, 18, Great Marylebone-
street,s said that the prisoner called in at his shop about
four o'clock yesterday afternoon, and said that he
was sent to look out some brushes and tortoiseshell
combs for Mrs. Green Wilkinson, of 39, Wimpole-
street, for inspection. He took two pair of brushes
and three combs, but he (witness) suspecting the
truth of his statement, sent his girl after to observe.
where he went to ; she returned shortly after, and
from her information he went to Mr. Thomas, pawn-
broker, East-street, where prisoner was in the act of
pledging the property. He gave him immediately
into custody.
Albert King, shopman to Mr. Thomson, proved
that prisoner came to him offering the goods to pledge,
when interupted by the entrance of complainant.
Wm. Binstead, Mrs. Wilkinson's butler, attended
to disclaim on the part of the family any connection
with the prisoner. The family had only returned
late yesterday evening from a two years residence on
the Continent, so that it was quite impossible the
prisoner could have had any orders from them.
James Binham, ironmonger, 19, Wiginore-street,
said the prisoner came to his place yesterday,
about two o'clock, and ordered a quantity of articles
he selected to be sent to the residence of James Gun-
thorpe, Esq., 20, Edward •street, Portman-square. He,
however, took with him a bronzed hand lamp, which
he alleged he had immediate use for. Witness after-
wards saw the lamp at a pawnbroker's, and identified it.
Wm. Jones, shopman to Mr. Smith, South-street,
proved the pledging of the lamp for ls. 6tl.
Several parties were in Court to 'charge the prisoner
with other eases of swindling; but on Inspector Black
requesting that he might be remanded, as the evi-
dence was not completed, the further hearing was or-
dered for Thursday next, when the other charges will
be gone into.

CLERKEN WELL.
Thomas Ainsworth, a truly wretched-looking boy,
without a single garment to skreen him but an old

black coat saturated with wet, was charged with
begging.
Police-constable E 50 deposed that he found the
prisoner wandering about King-street, llolborn, be-
tween twelve and one on the previous night. He said
he was very cold and very hungry.
Mr. COMBE—AwI where did you take him to ?
Policeman—To the Mendicity, to try if they knew
him there as an old mendicant, but they did not.
Mr. COMBB—Where next ? Policeman—To the
station-house.
Mr. COMBE—And he was locked up there all night?
Policeman—Yes. .

Mr. COMBE—For what ? Policeman—For being
destitute.

Mr. Comm—According to your own statement
the boy was doing no harm ; he should not, therefore,
he punished. Take him instantly to the parish autho-
rities, and let him have. immediate relief ; and never
again lock up a person such as the prisoner, but take
him to the workhouse and let him be relieved.