The Sun. — 1863-02-11 (London, England)

HEATHCOTE V. BELASCO.  This was an action for the recovery of the value of a quantity of jewellery which had been lodged as security for an advance of money. The plaintiff, it appeared, was a married man, and in August last year arrived in London from Brighton on a visit, and shortly after went to a notorious house, known as Kate Hamilton's, in Leicester-square. He there commenced a career of dissipation, and eventually his money ran short, when he lodged his wife's watch, chain, and miniature, which he wore, and other articles, as , security for an advance of money from the de-1 fendant, who occupied the upper part of the house. The visits of the plaintiff to Hamilton's amounted to some eight or nine times. On each occasion he supped and took champagne with some of the women visiting the place. On tendering the money, £9 10s., as the amount he had received from Belasco, the property was refused to be given up, as more cash th-in the £9 10s. was said to be owing. The defendant Belasco, in his cross-examination, said he was not the proprietor of the house in question. It was kept by a person named Fryer. The advances made to the plaintiff were to discharge the bills he had incurred at Kate Hamilton's. He (defendant)was a general dealer. He dealt in anything by which he could earn a pound. He had been 12 years ago indicted for murder, but he was not guilty of such a crime. The jury found a verdict of manslaughter, and he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. He was never convicted of theft. He once was on board a steamer, and in a drunken state he, for a joke more than anything else, took a great number of pass tickets, and as he refused to give them up he was given into custody. He did not call that thieving. In his re-examination the defendant said that the death of the person for whom he was convicted was occasioned by a blow in a quarrel, and the affair on board the steamboat occurred 17 years ago. A number of witnesses having been examined, The judge commented in very serious terms on both the conduct of the plaintiff as well as the defendant, and said it was for the jury to say which they believed, as they both swore directly the reverse of each other; at the same time observing that one witness for the defendant did not help his case much, as she admitted she was a person of ill repute, and, from the tone of her voice, he thought she was a drunkard. The question for the jury to decide would be whether the defendant had made out his allegation that he had advanced more than £9 10s. If not, the verdict would be for the plaintiff, and an order would issue that the goods would be ordered to be given up. The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.  The Judge inquired whether they were agreed that no more than £9 10s. was advanced.  The Foreman said they were. The learned Judge said that the property must be restorel on the payment of that sum. Sergeant Ballantine, who appeared for the plaintiff, suggested that some sort of security ought to be taken for the return of the property. The learned Judge ultimately entered the verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, £49, to be reduced to Is. when the property was returned.