The Press.
London, England, 1856-12-27 00:00:00

yatu anb

THE JUDGMENT OF THE ARCHES COURT in the case
" Liddell v. Westerton," delivered on Saturday,
affirmed in all respects the judgment of the court
below. As to the question of costs Sir John Dodson
said he was of opinion that the court below did per-
fectly right, under all the circumstances, in not allow-
ing costs. But when there had been an appeal, and
when he felt himself constrained to affirm the first
judgment, he deemed it his duty to condemn the
appellants in the costs of that appeal. He therefore
affirmed the judgment of the court below in both
these cases :

Mr. CURREY (the proctor for Mr. Liddell) then said:
In accordance with my instructions I beg with all respect
to assert appeals in both these cases to the Judicial Com•
mittee of the Privy Council.
The delivery of the judgment occupied three hours
and a half.

AT THE EXAMINATION this week of Mr. Daniel
Greenaway Porter, a bankrupt wine merchant, some
peculiar circumstances came to light connected with
the manner in which the petition for adjudication had
been obtained, and a debt on an I 0 U proved
against the estate by one William Snell, at the
alleged instigation of Mr. George Marshall, solicitor,
of Sion College-gardens. Mr. Marshall denied that
he had had any previous conversation with Snell. He
objected to answer a question whether he had had
previous conversation with the bankrupt on the
subject. Whether he answered the question—
" Yes," or "No," the answer might tend to criminate
him—whether he was guilty of the offence Imputed
to him or not.

The COMMISSIONER doubted whether, being a penal
matter, Mr. Marshall was obliged to answer the
question ; he thought not.
Mr. LAWRANCE said the charge was as grave a one
eit could well be advanced against a professional
stn. He should have thought that Mr. Marshall
would have felt it a duty to himself as a professional
man to answer the question, and his reply to the
question was not what might be anticipated from an
innocent man. He would now ask for a preliminary
step to be taken with a view to an application to
strike Mr. Marshall's name off the roll of attorneys.
The bankrupt was again examined. He stated
that his evidence was true:—
Mr. Marshall had said, " What was there imputed to
him ?" He had understood that Snell was an attorney,
and he gave him the 1 0 U because he understood that he
was acting for Mr. Marshall. Mr. Samuel Fletcher, of
Hornertou, was the petitioning creditor. Had not the
slightest idea who he (Fletcher) was. The petitioning
creditor's debt arose on a bill of exchange for 521. endorsed
to Fletcher by one George Henderson. Marshall ii the
solicitor for the petition. Mr. Henderson was " a gentle.
man" in the same prison (Whitecross.street) with himself
and Marshall. Both Marshall and Sneil were present
when he gave the 10 U to the latter. Did not see Snell
swear that he was a creditor on the 10 U. It was true
that he did not owe Snell one farthing. The I 0 U was
given in consequence of Marshall saying that a debt must
be made. He did not understand that Marshall was going
to make up a debt, or he would not have signed the I 0 U.
Marshall would, he thought, be mad to do such a thing as
that. Would not swear that Marshall did not add to the
1
words " creditors must be made," the words "to prove
their debts," but did not remember that lie did.
Mr. Bird deposed that he had told the bankrupt
lie would get himself into trouble unless he was pre-
pared to prove "consideration " for the petitioning
-- IDIT

had heard deceased

i.auu AUL Lu pcuuuuing Examination continued :He had heard deceased coin. sentenced him to three months' hard iauour iu
creditor's debt. It had made a strong impression plain of the food she had given her for dinner, and when Wandsworth House of Correction.

-.••■..A4l4."o•,ameiyaimi