The Sun. — 1841-04-08 (London, England)

FENWICK V. LETCOCK. TV is was an action to recover the sum of 3q. 91 for fireworks supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. Mr. Platt fur the plaintiff, and Mr. Creasy for the defendant. The plaintiff proved that he supplied goods to the amount specified, and the defence set up was that the defendant was merely the agent of a person named Miller. Mr. Creasy also contended that the sale of fireworks being illegal by the Act of the 9th and 10th Geo. IV. the plaintiff could nut recover. Lord DENMAN said that this should have been specially pleaded. The Jury then returned a verdict fur the plaintiff for tl-e amount claimed. Two other cases of no public importance were then dis. posed of and the busineis of this assize terminated,  The Jery retied, and returned in tan minutes, finding both the prisoners Not Guilty. They were then arraigned on two other indictments, one charging them with having discharged the contents of a pipe at Benjamin and 11111e3 Cooper, on the 20th of November and the sth December, with intent to murder them. No evidence was offered, and verdicts of acquittal were taken ; and there being no other charge against Huime, he was discharged.  Re-examined by Mr. Anorsmus—Went out to get the note changed, because he thought it was not a good one. It was not his intention to get change of the note, but merely to ascertain whether it was a good one. Mrs. Helen ]ledges—Would not swear that the prisoner at the bar was the person that came to her husband's shop on Saturday the 20th of February, but. he was very much like the man. He called the following day and said that her ht ousband had not sent the boots he bought the previous night, ezh_ ri,chw ; t witnesshe p r irepliedsaid dt thatthey wasd bneoetn I hseen rightt tto BrunsWick-row es ' He gave witness 53. and took away the boots himself. at CNhoar.le4s, SLu,stwtonntieDa_ance,a7naeAatollbooh,o.aty.,nd shoemaker, residing it was about road. On the 20th of February, the Prisoner chase a pair of boots ; s The prisoner asked for a pair ofaiNiVyehillnt shop,h and wanted tplpukr-. chosewitness a pairreplied f thhee didut, for ro whichkeep for his :address g tipanst heoleovtse,n too ciwoncich he tenderertehlicsep.iecPerofsopn?.7 per. Upon witness asking Witness he wrote upon it, " J. Monteith, 7, firunswick-road." out of the note, 4/. 9s. 6d. The prisoner toonkgau,:eahihm change and the boots, but returned shortly afterwards fort heis moneyum umbrella. Witness did not look closely to the note, as he had two other persons in the shop. Went on Tuesday to the direction given by the prisoners but could discover no person of the name of Monteith. Saw the prisoner in custody, and recognised him as the person who came to his shop on Saturday night. Cross-examined by Mr. l'incLips—Th e note was nothing like a Bank of England note. Re-examined by Sir F. PoLLoCK—Did not try to part with the note at all. Finch, a police constable, F 90.—His station was at Nunhead. On the evening of the 20th of March went to the house of Mr. Trott at Nunhead. He saw the prisoner there and took him into custody, for attempting to pass off a forgedt 5/. note to Mr. Trott. Searched the prisoner, and found w.o other 51. notes upon him. '1 he notes shown to witness were not the notes, but the two notes now shown to him are the two notes. Found the notes between his thigh and his trows,rs. Joshua Freeman—Was Inspector of Notes in the Bank of England. The papers produced were gross imitations of the Hank of England note. They were forgeries in every respect. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. PHILLIPS addressed the Jury for the prisoner. Mr. Justice PATTEsos summed up. The Jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner Guilty. There were other indictments against the prisoner, but Sir F. Pommel( intimated that it was not the intention of the 13snk of England to proceed with them. Mr. Justice PATTESON sentenced the prisoner to transportation for life.