The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-07 00:00:00

DUPES V. KEELING AND ANOTHER.

This was an action for money had and received.
The amount claimed was 61. Is. 6d.
Mr. GURNEY stated that the plaintiff in this case
was a boot and shoemaker. The defendants
(Messrs. Keeling and Neck) were attornies, resid-
ing at—he begged the Jury would observe the ad-
.dress—No. 41, Lime-street, Leadenhall-street. He
recommended the jury to take down the address,
not with a view to their employing those persons,
but in order that they might avoid them, and put
their friends on their guard against their practices.
If there was one house in the city of London which
was a greater nuisance than another, it was the
house of these defendants, who were what was called
" discounting attornies." Such characters were
in any pace a most horrible nuisance, and he, (the
Learned Counsel) should be extremely glad if the
verdict of the jury in this case should have the
effect of causing it to be abated. The plaintiff had
been induced, for the accommodation of a friend, to
become a party to a bill of exchange which became
due on the 13th of May, in the present year. On
that day the bill was presented for payment and
not being taken up immediately, a notice was left in
the name of the defendants, stating that the bill

(which was for 10/. only) was then due, and lay at
their officein Lime-street. This notice was a printed
form, filled up with the amount of the hill,
and the name of the party. The plaintiff being
unfortunately not quite ready with the 101.
on the 13th of May, the worthy gentlemen,
the defendants, on the 15th, issued three writs
upon the bill, one against the drawer, another
against an endorser, and the third against the ac-
ceptor, the present plaintiff, Mr. Dupen. In order
to stop the proceedings as soon as . possible (tire
writ being returnable on the 18th May), he request-
ed his attorney (Mr. Cox) to go to the defendants
and pay the debt and costs. The attorney accord.
ingly waited on the defendants, who gave him a
short account of the costs, but refused to part with
the bill. In the course of the conversation Mr.

Cox was given to understand that there were two
other writs out upon the bill. After conferring
with the plaintiff, Mr. Cox paid 12/, the amount of
the debt and costs in the action against the drawer.
This was on the 16th May. In the course of the
same day Mr. Cox knowing that there would be a
great increase of expenses if the proceedings were
put an end to immediately, sent and paid the
C(o)tsts in the other two actions, the whole (in the
three actions) amounting to Q/. and a fraction—a
sum, which if the costs bud been taxed by the
master in the regular way, would have been reduced
by at least one-third. But there was an objection
to having them taxed, as a taxation on the part of
the present plaintiff, Dupen, would have been vir-
tually an acknowledgment that Saunders was a person
who had a right to sue on the bill. The plaintiff
being satisfied that the use of that name (Saunders)
was all a trick, called on the defendants, through
Mr. Cox, to say who and what Mr. Saunders wag,
and where he resided. They, however, declined to
furnish the information, and he (the Learned Coun-
sel) believed that there was in reality no such per-
son as Mr. Saunders.
Mr. ARCHBOLD addressed the Jury for the de-
fendants, who, he said, were highly respeetablv
uttornies, after which James Saunders was examined,

and the July found for the plaintiff—Datnages,
61. ls. Gd.

BOARD OF EXCISE, Dec. 5.
MIXING AND COLOURING RUM.
Mr. John Henry Fisher, a licensed ictualler in
Tooley-street, Borough, was charged with having in
his possession a quantity of colouring, for the pur-
pose of adulterating beer. An Excise officer on the
22d of June found in the defendant's 31)44 cellar, a
boule containing a quart of colouring, such as is
made use of in adulterating beer. The defendant
said it was spruce, but on tasting it he discovered
its quality. As the defendant had had in a puncheon
of rum, containing 100 gallons, the week before, and
as the material he found could be used to colour
rum, be exatoined the puncheon, and found that its
contents had been divided. When the defendant re-
ceived the rum it was 30 per cent. above proof;
part of it was in that sate when he (the officer)
discovered it, and the remainder had been mixed and
discoloured.
The defendant, in reply to the charge, said that
the rum, when he received it from the docks, was
• extremely strong, and to reduce it to the saleable
strength, he mixed 60 gallons of water with it ; this
would make it too pale, and he used the co!ouring
to bring back its former complexion. He denied
having used the stuff to adulterate beer.
The Commissioners fined the detendant 5/. for
having the colouring in his possession.
Jacob Moses, late a tobacco and snuff-dealer, at
No. 6, St. George's-circus, Southwark, was charged
with adulterating a quantity of snuff.
Three scuff-dealers, who examined the mixture in
question, which passed for snuff, proved that it was
half genuine snuff and the other half lamp black.
The defendant was fined .50/.
John Duggan, a young man about 18 years of
age, was fined 20/. for selling goods by auction at a
house in Leicester-square, without having given no-
tice to the Excise.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DEC. 5.
Richard Badoock,late a warehouseman in Wood-
street, Cheapside, was opposed by Mr. Nichols on
behalf of Messrs. Spenseley and Lynch. He was
sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

.Llin Spencer, a porter, formerly employed as a
carman about the warehouses of the East India
Company, was brought before the LORD MAYOR on
Saturday, charged with having stolen a chest of
black tea, No. 492, from the Company's yard, on
the 3d of October. .

Mr. Roberts, an officer in the employment of the
Company, saw the prisoner eater the yard on Sa-
turday, the 3J of October, a few minutes before
three o'clock, and go to the place where the single
chests are deposited; witness asked him for his per-
mit, which he produced; it was taken out in the
name of Forster; supposing that all was correct, he
took no further notice, but made the entry in his book.
Mr. Forster, a grocer in Tooley-street, had sent
an order to Mr. Watkins, the tea-broker, on the 2d
of October, to clear a chest of black tea for him,
and that he did not know the prisoner, nor had he
ever seen him before ; when Mr. Watkins sent for
the tea, on the 3d, he found it had been taken away.
The LORD MAYOR asked how permits were ob-
tained for the removal of goods from the Company's
stores ?—Mr. Watkins saiJ, that on purchasing the
tea, a paper called the request paper was sent down
to the yard, and left in the box, which was easily
accessible to persons in the yard. Any person who
got possession of the request paper, could imme-
di itely get a permit, on presenting it at the proper
office. Such V% as the course in the present instance.
The prisoner, who was known to the Company's
office's, possessed himself of the request paper, took
out the permit, and carried off the chest of tea on
his knot. _

The locker, the porter, and other persons em-
ployed about the yard, identified the prisoner as the
person who carried away the chest of tea on the 3d
of October.
The prisoner was committed, and the parties were
bound over to prosecute.
What gives importance to the above case is the
fact that many thefts of the same kind have been
perpetrated of late; no less than fifteen chests of
tea having been stolen in a similar manner within
the last three Months. It seems (though the goes.
tion has never been tried) that the purchaser is the
loser, the Company insisting that they have done
with the article the moment it is passed into the
yard.