The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-07 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 6.

The Vice-Chancellor of England was occupied the
whole day with demurers and further directions.

COURT OF •QUE EA' 8 BENCH, Dec. 6.

(Sittings after Term b?fore Lord DENMAN and a
Middlesex Special Jury .)
TUE QUEEN V. CII3I§TIAN.

This was an indictment charging the defendant
with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury,
in an affidavit sworn to by defendant in a cause in the
Vice-Chancellor's Court.

Mr. Thesiger, Mr. Clarltson, and Mr. Bodkin ap-
peared for the prosecution; and Mr. Kelly and Mr.
Chambers for the defendant.

It appeared that a Mr. Fannin, a French refugee,
had died in 1806, and had made several wills at dif-
ferent times of his life. By one of these wills he had
left certain portions of his property to Mr. Christian,
the father of defendant, .certain other portions to a
Mr. Devcreux, and the remaining portion to a Catho-
lic prie3t. He subsequently 1--de a different will,
which he deposited with MI-. Chri-tian. In 1814
Mr. DevereuNc preferred his claim before the Com-
missioners of lfrench Claims, and ealkd upon ChriS-
tiam to produce the will. Christian said the will was
lost, buy his son, the defendant, had a copy, which
copy was produced, and Dcvereux was successful in
his claim. The Commissioners of Charities in Ire-
land, who claimed under one of these filed a
bill in Chancery against Devereux, and the Commis-
sion of French Claims paid into Court the sum of
24,000/. Old Mr. Christian died in 18 7, and his
son, the defendant, then presented a petition to the
Vice •Chrtricellor, setting forth his claims to the pro-
perty. As twenty years Lad elapsed since the com-
mencement of the suit, defendant was obliged to
make an affidavit, stating why he had suffered his
dann to remain dormant so long ; and it was alleged,
that in that affidavit he had committed perjury, by
mis-stating all the facts of the case, and suppressing
map.), esential cireumstance3.
Mr. KELLY took several technical objections to the
indictment, the discussion of which took up the greater
-part of the morning.
Several of the objections taken having been over-
ruled,
.__

Mr. KELLY took an obje2tion to the admission of
the office copy of the affidavits, made by defendant in
the Court of Chancery. The of copy, which was
a;so stated to be an examined copy, contained various
abbreviationi of words, which in the original were
written at length; as was admitted by the witnesswho
produc:rd the copy.
Lord DEN AN held the objection to be fatal. It
was a most improper practice, for the purpose of
saving .a little time, to introduce contractions into
copies of documents to be given in evidence. Such
copies should agree word for word with the original.
The Jury, by direction of the Court, acquitted.the
defendant.

CRIM. CON.—JAMES V. LENNOX.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to'
recler damages from the defendant for criminal
conversation with the plaintiff's wife.
Mr. TAYLOR having opened the pleadings,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the plaintiff
was an officer in the service of the East India
Company, and had married the lady who was
the unfortunate subject or the present action,
some time in the year 1837. The marriage had
taken place in Ireland, and shortly afterwards the
plaintiff and his wife had proceeded to India. where
plaintiff joined his regiment. They remained there,
living happily together until the close of 1840,when Mrs.
James met with an accident by falling from her horse,
in consequence of which her health became so affected
that it was considered necessary that she should return
to England. Her passage was accordingly taken from
Calcutta in a ship, commanded by Captain Ingram,
whose wife was on board, and in which a Mr. and
Mrs. Curtis had also taken their passage. Mrs.
James was placed under their care. Un-
fortunately on the passage home, the vessel
touched at Madras, where the defendant, who
was also an officer in the East India Company's ser-
vice, came on board and took his passage fur Eng-
land. During the voyage an intimacy sprung up be-
tween defendant and plaintiff's wife, which had even-
tually proceeded to such a length as to render
the present action necessary.. The defendant
was no friend or acquaintance of the plaintiff,
and therefore he could not urge a breach of friend.-
ship in aggravation of his conduct, but still the lady
had been introduced to him as the wife of a brother
oEficer, and he must be held responsible for his con-
duct during the voyage, and after his arrival in Eng-
land.

Mr. 'Thesigor (with Whom was Mr. Ball), here
interposed on the part of the defendant. fie
nihnitted that he had no available detence to the
action, and he was most anxious that all parties should
be spared the pain of the present investigation. He
had therefore to propose to his Learned Friend, that a
verdict should be taken for plaintiff with 1001. damages.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was willing to accept the
proposition of his Learned Friend.
The Jury accordingly returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages iOO/.

HUGGINS V. COATES.
, The defendant in this case was the individual who,
some years since, acquired the soubriquet of " Romeo
Coates," from his histrionic propensities. He had, in
182 G, sold an annuity of 2251. to plaintiff for 1,500/.
Of that annuity he had only paid the first annual in-
stalment, and the annuity bond had subsequently been
set aside for irregularity. The present action was
brought to recover the purchase-money advanced.
`Air. Platt was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Huggins
for the defendant.

Several technical objections were taken, and some
points were reserved.
The Jury found for plaintiff—Damages 1,5001.
Lord DENmAN reserved leave to defendant to move
for a nonsuit on a verdict for plaintiff, on the ground,
that the money having been advanced in 1826, the
case came within the statute of limitations.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Dec. 6.
The Court sat in Banco, and proceeded with the
remaining cases in the special paper. The arguments
were, as usual on such occasions, of a purely technical
character, and involved no point of general interest.

SECONDARIES' COURT, .Dec. 6.
MATTHEWS V. EVANS.
This was an action to recover the sum of 871. 16q
for board and lodging. The defendant, a widow, -ap-
peared to defend the action.
The first witness called was a charwoman, who was
occasionally employed by the plaintiff. She stated
that about two years ago the defendant came to live
with the plaintiff. She was to board and lodge
with him.
The defendant—How do you know that ?
The SECONDARY—Stop, your turn will come pre-
sently, and, I dread the cross-examination.
The witness went on to state, that the defendant
took three rooms in the house. She did not know
what she was to pay for them. She used to take her
meals with the plaintiff.
Mrs. Evans—Didn't we have taters, and herrings,
and some sausages, and sometimes—(Laughter)—
didn't we sometimes go without dinner, and some-
t;rnes have a shoulder of mutton to last all the week ?
Didn't we—
Mr. Secondary JAMES—Now, which question do
you wish answered first, Mrs. Evans To the wit-
ness--711ow .did the family live ? Witness—Some-
times
they hid chops for dinner, with potatoes and
beer.

Mrs. Evans—Chops and beer, indeed. I wish I
could have'.em.—(Laughter.) Why, war'nt I a ser-
vant to 'em? Warn't I sent down into the kitchen
when them there preachers come, cos I wasn't corn-
plished enough ? and didn't I
Mr. Secondary JAmEs—Now, pray ask one ques-
tion at a time.
Mrs. Evans—Well, Sir, sometimes we had faggots
for supper, and sometimes taters biled, and that used
to cost twopence. But when them preachers came there
was summut else, but I had none.
The SECONDARY intimated that she would have an
opportunity of making her statement.
Eliza Matthews, the daughter of the plaintiff, was
called, and proved that the defendant had resided with
her father, and also boarded for two years. •
Mrs. Evans—Did I ever have any thing to drink
with the preachers in the parlour? Did I occupy
these three rooms ? Now tell me the truth, my dear.
To all these questions the witness answered that
she did.
Mrs. Evans—You know that I always sat in the
kitchen, and they used to send me summut to eat
down when the preachers was there.
Mr. Secondary JAMES—WeII, but why did you
stop with them if they used you so ill ? Mrs. Evans
—Because I was ill and delicate.—(Laughter.)
This being the case for the plaintiff, Mrs. Evans
rose to address the Jury. First of all, as she could not
read, she begged to hand broker a newspaper containing a
police report, in which a had been committed to
prison for seizing her goods at the instigation of the
plaintiff. This was however, not admitted as evidence.
She then stated that she had placed her furniture in
the house of the plaintiff, for which she was to have
board and lodging, and that now she wished to leave,
lie turned round upon her and brought this action.
This was not pleaded, and as the action had been
allowed to go by default, it could not be proved in
evidence.

The Jury returned a verdict for- the plaintiff,
damages 521.

Mrs. Evans then begged the Jury to read her news-
paper. This being declined, she wished the usher to
do so. But she was unsuccessful, and she lefc the
Court in high dudgeon, wishing the Sheriff to inform
her if he called that justice.
It was stated in Court that she was abill discounter.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 6.
IN RE EDWARD CORAII.

The bankrupt in this case had carried on an ex-
tensive business as a draper and mercer, in the firm
of Ccrah and Shileto, Union-street, Bristol. The
amount of his liabilities was 4,0001. at the date of the
fiat, shortly before which time he drew certain moneys
from his banking account, with which he absconded
to France. Previous to the issuing of the fiat, a cam-
position of 10s. in the pound was offered to the
creditors, which was subsequently raised to 135., but
both tenders were refused, as it was alleged he was
well able to pay 20s. At his last examination he
stated that the money which he drew from his banker
be lodged in the bank of M. Adolphe Adam at
Boulogne, for the purpose of paying through their
agents in London certain debts which he owed in
England. Considerable doubt having arisen with
respect to this fact the case was adjourned, in order
that the bankrupt might produce more tangible proof
of the money being thus appropriated.
The case having again come .before the Court this
day, the bankrupt professed his utter inability to
furnish the information required by the Court.

The official assignee said that no further informa•
tion had been afforded with respect to the moneys
allezed to have been lodged at the Boulogne hank.
The LEARNED CoiamiAsioNErt said the case should
he again adjourned, and if the bankrupt did not
render all the information required by the official
assignee, he (the Learned Commissioner) would avail
himself of the new poweri DOW vested in him under
the Bankruptcy Amendment Act, and commit him at
once to prison.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec.-67

IN RE JOHN GEORGE SMITH.

- The insolvent had been discharged gnder the Act
in 1839,. from. liabilities amounting to 7391. In the
present instance all that was available to his creditors
were two debts, both of which were described as bad.
Mr. CooKE applied to have T. Easel, Esq., a Cap-
tain in ,the Royal Navy, appointed assignee. He hall
lent the insolvent 601., in security. for which he got
the lease of certain premises.
_ _

Mr. Commissioner HARRIS said the habits of a naval-
officer were not adapted for such an office as assignee
to an insolvent's estate. He should appoint one of
the trade creditors.

The insolvent was then ordered to be discharged.
IR RE WILLIAM JACKSON.

The insolvent's petition to be discharged was op-
posed by Mr. Cooke, on the grounds of undue pre-
ference.

It appeared that he had executed a warrant of at
torney in favour of Messrs. Ellington and Wells, the
extensive ale brewers, who thus became possessed of
all the property.--Discharged.

IN RE THOMAS BIRD HUGHES..

The insolvent in this case was a barrister, residing
in chambers in the Inner Temple. The amount of
debts which appeared in his schedule was about 1,2001.
in the aggregate and the number of creditors was 71.
In reply to Air. Commissioner Harris, he said he
had been writing for Loan Societies ; was entitled to
no property in reversion or possession. Had some law
books and other documents at his chambers.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS—You are entitled to
retain your law books.
He was declared entitled to be discharged forthwith.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

SENTENCES, AND OTHER SESSIONAL RE-

SULTS AND ADJUDICATIONS.

Yesterday the November Session terninated, and in
the course of the day judgment was pronounced upon
a number of prisoners, and some were brought up to
have their sentences revised. Subjoined are the prin-
cipal adjudications during the sitting of the Court.

BANISTIMENT.—The undernamed -Ivere sentenced to
be transported beyond the seas for tha following
periods :
For Seven Years—Frances Martin, Mary A. Dia7.
mond, Sarah Beale, Charlotte Adland, Ann Shep-
herd, Mary Mahoney, Elizabeth Gill, Mary Toomey,
Mary Mahoney, J. Green, Selina Wellesley, S
Smith, Rosina Horner, W. Johnson, Maria Brake,
F. N. Stevens, Frances Noland (alias Paton), T.
Poole, 11. Uighstead, Michael Donovan, W. Prior,
C.-Priestley; J. IV. Collins, R. Daniels, J. Tibbs
(alias Brown), T. Oldershaw, H. Stevens, IV. Web-
ber, C. Blower, W. Batty, E. Poole, J. mith (alias
Howard), E. Shepherd, J. Harris, J. Brown, J.
Jones, F. Martin, J. Wilson, J. Williams, J. Bull,
C. Phelan J. Brown, T. Pearce, P. Taylor, J. Jack-
son (alia; T. Romaine, J. Casey, J. Bur-
don, B. ShaW, and Williams),. Smith.

For Ten Years.—Edward Snelling. Mary M'Cun-
life, J. Sutherland, J. Blackberry, J. Holland, Mary
Jones, J. Freegrove, C 7. Pizzey, D. Farrell, it. Hol-
den, Ann Jenkins, Geo. Baker, B. Reed, J. Robinson.
For Fourteen Years.----T Croft.

For Fifteen Years.—T) Gerrard, J. Gibson.
IMPRISONMENT AID HARD LABOUR.—The follow-
ing convicts were sentenced to be imprisoned in the
Houses of Correction for the counties in which their
offences were committed, for the periods set against
their respective names, with the adjunct of hard la-
bour :

For Two Years.—T. G. Emmett, E. T. Boyden,
Ellen Mullgate, C. Lee, W. Taylor.
For Eighteen Months.—J. Smith.
For One Year.—R. Barfoot, Mary Barfoot, Sarah
Stewart, Wm. Martyr, W. H. Hopkins, Wm. Dear,
G. Wheeler, W. Brown, Frances Rugg, H. Rugg,
J. Williamson, J. Salvage, P. Barrett, H. Morris, E.
Smith.

For Nine Months.—J. Davis, J. Syble, T. Hayes,
T. V. Neale, E. T. Stevenson, J. Ledger, Mary Ann
Moody, G. Williams, C. Lee.
For Eight Months—J. White.
For Six Months—Margaret Twiney, Mary Smith,
Mary Duncan, Susan Ingram, Rosetta Daughter,
Lucy Williams, Mary M'Nally, Harriet Bone, Os-
mond Crowder, A.Hearing, J. Goldsmith (alias Smith),
Wm. J. Smith (alias Good), J. Campbell, C. Pearson,
T. R. Doyle, H. Harper, J. Blythe, J. Richardson,
G. Renton, C. W. Hackshaw, T. Allen, J. Under-
wood, G. Hunt, J. Bell, J. Neale,
i J. Bunion, R. Mil-
ler, J. Gardner, R. Sly, S. Mason, E. Toombs, J.
Dryden, G. Morgan, R. Hendon, H. Gates, and E.
Hale.

For Four Months—Maria Story, W. Garratt,
Maria Scott, Harriet Andrews, Amelia Blay, Mary
Perry, H. Brynton, E. Mitchell, J. Wilson, C. Berry,
J. Turner, J. Webster, W. Sanders, J. Williams, T.
Gardener, P. W. Poland, J. Taylor, R. Smith J.
Shepherd, W. Robinson, V. Sawyer, and J. Jones.
For Three Months—Eliza Daley, Ellen Daley,
Caroline Lamb, Ann Kirby, Mary Wilson, Mary
Dacey, Elizabeth Frazer, Caroline Hedger, J. Gol-
bell, jun., E. ,Mitchell, H. Mitchell, T. Stow, T.
Porter, T. Atkins, H. Harper, H. Smith, J. Smith,
H. Thompson, G. Spiers, T. Gilding, W. Emmett,
G. Fox, J. Smith, W. Hampton, T. Wakeling, J.
Day, W. Sanders, W. Seeber, P. Wordsworth, J.
M'lntyre, C. Sullivan, W. Tullison, E. Butler, J.
Baler, and G. Taylor.
I an
do
ers,
rTs 21,1- ovA. 'Bo nrtabes—ke
tA, C
M. Bo
rrsd,aonnt,, My W.
roenset,,
W.
M`Call, J. Williams, and J. Howe.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.
A man named Thomas Edwards, who is cook on
board a steamer, 'vas brought before the Lord May:
and Alderman Thomas Wood, charged with having
obstructed a Custom-house officer in the execution of
his duty, in apprehending a man accused of smuggling.
C. lir. Davis, the Custom-house officer alluded to,
stated that on the 10th of last month, between four
and five o'clock in the afternoon, he detected two men
smuggling brandy from one steamer to another.
Having apprehended one of the smugglers, whom he
put into the custody of a brother officer, he went after
the other, but the defendant pushed away the man by
force, and advised him not on any account to allow
himself to be taken into custody. Resistance to the
witness's authority was accordingly made, but by the
interference of the captain, the smuggler was se-
cured, and was, upon being taken before the Lord
Mayor, fined 51., and a similar penalty was inflicted
upon the other person engaged in the contraband I
transaction.

Mr. Lewis, the defendant's solicitor, represented to
the Magistrates that his client might have been brought
up along with the two men referred to on the 10th
of last month, instead of having the charge hanging
in terrorem over him, preventing him from attending
to his business with comfort and profit. Even if the.
obstruction complained of had actually occurred, it
would be unfair to defer the prosecution until it
suited those who might order it.
The LORD MAYOR asked the efficer why the de-
fendant had not been complained against before?
Davis said the decision of the Board of Cuu toms as
to the prosecution of a person accused of obstructing
an officer must be received before the necessary steps
to procure conviction could be resorted to. The per-
son who obstructed was not dealt with until the
smuggling was disposed of.
Alderman T. WOOD asked whether it was to he
understood that a case was to hang over a man for
a month because it was not the custom to dispose of
smuggling and the attempt to obstruct the officers in
the execution of their duty ?—Davis replied that such
were the directions issued to the officers. The Com-
missioners investigated charges of obstruction before
.they ordered prosecutions for the offence. The; offi-
cers sometimes did not receive answers from.the Board
on the subject for seven days.
The Los]) atroit—lt is very hard that this man