The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-19 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—F=s. 18.

&Hipp at Nisi Prins in Loadou--(Balore Lord ChidJustice
Erie and s Special Jury.)
MARIE V. MONTI/TORE AND 0111188.—DMPOTID cunt

This was en action upon a policy of insurance upon stock
in trade for 7504, and there were several plus upon the
record, but the defence wu that the plaintiff had been
guilty of fraud, by claiming for more good■ than he had lost.
Mr. Serjeant Mee and Mr. Philbrick appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Moral, Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Cohen for
the defendnots,

The plaintiff, a Jew, had carried on business as a
feather merchant, at 128, Cannon-street-road, since
August, 1860—hi' mother, and previously his father, having
ban in businen upon the same premises for some years.
The policy in question was effected on the 19th Feb.,
1861, and the fire happened on the 25th May, 1862.
The trial occupied two days, a great deal of evidence
in reference to the plaintiff's stock, where it was placed
upon the premises, the remains found after the fire, and
other matters, being given,
The jury, after considering the matter for an hour, found
a verdict for the plaintiff for 50/.
Mr. Hawkins applied for ► stay of execution.
The Lad Chief Justice said he had better mention the
matter again to-morrow.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE,
pai. 18.
Wore tha Julio Ordinary.)

1110111410 N AND NM V. TIDDIAIf AND 01111:1111 CITED TO
Lai PROCLIDINGS.
(Concluded from yeeterday'a Express.)
The defendant 011ard and several other witnesses won
examined, and they all deposed with great positivism
to the sanity of the testator.
Sir R. Phillimore admitted that there wee no evidence of
undue influence, but it was clear that the testator's memory
mast have wholly failed him, otherwise he could never have
made so important a champ in the disposition of his pro-
perty as he had done in the form of a mere codicil. It wee
clear that the iotentioo of the deceased was merely to give
Mr. 011ard a legacy, sad he had all along gone upon the
assumption that the codicil would confirm the will;
whereas it wholly destroyed it.
Mr. Grey and Mr. Collins (the regular attorney of the
deceased) were called, and they showed, amongst other
things, that though a person of very methodical character,
the testator bad for the last month omitted to open his
letters, and for the last ten days had ceased to keep his
diary.
The jury found in favour of the codicil, and
The Court decreed probate, with costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Fu. 18.
(Before Mr. Oomsainioser Holroyd.)
124 II T. W. younoauswax—ClLlLlGE OF BREACH OF
TRUBT.—arrow. or DUICHARGR.

The bankrupt VW described es a solicitor, late of Brighton,
and since a Furman in Lewes Gaol ; but it appeared that
be had previously been in practice is London, having offices
in Bishopagate-street. This was the sitting for order of
discharge. The liabilities are 6,0001. ; no assts. Before
the noes was gene into, Mr. flugood, who appeared for the
bankrupt, offered on his part to est 'wide 200/. a year out of
his fature earnings, if the opposition were oot preened, but
this offer was not accepted.
Mr. Linklater opposed for a creditor. The bankrupt, is
his capacity of solicitor, bad received I,IOW. from Miss
Beruil ette, of St. John's-wood, for the purpose of being in.
v on reid security. He represented to her that he had
dose so, end had taken a mortgage on some property at
Bayswater. It turned out that be had applied it to his own
use, and it was asked that the order of discharge should be
wholly refused.
Before the bankrupt INN examined,
Mr. Sergood submitted that the case did not come within
the 159th mediae, the debt having bees contracted when
the bankrupt received the money some years ago, and when
by the very fact of receiving it he had the means of
repaying it.
He Honour thought that the offence baying been cont.
mitkd before the new act came into operation only relieved
the bankrupt from criminal proceedings under that act, and
did not prevent the court from suspending the order of dis-
charge.
The bankrupt, being examined, said he was bankrupt
about 1837. He was made bankrupt as a director of an
asphalte and bitumen company. In 1858 he was a solicitor,
and was also engaged in various speculations, one with Mr.
John Gaudell for supplying coal to Italy. Gaudell was the
person who was largely indebted to Mammas. &Mm, Paul,
and Bates. the bankers. Had heard. before 1858, that he
was indebted to them upwards of 100,00 W., and that Gan-
da and Co. themselves were in insolvent circumetamma.

Grids]] bad been bankrupt in Fiance before that. A person
named Dapper bad owed him money since 1854. Deeper bad
since been in the Bench. In January, 1853, Caudell owed
him 3071. Had received some of that money.
Dappet's debt had turned out bad. Had lost between 1,5004
and 2.0001. by him. Several tabard his debtors, including
Colonel Fancourt, Mr. Anstey, end Mr. Stooehouse, had
turned out bad, u had most of the shares which he held;
they had principally resulted in calla. Did not consider
that Le was insolvent io 1857. He was still liable on bills
then given. In May, 1858. Mira aualltett• wls frOdlnif
under his roof, sad asked him to sell out of the funds
1,1581. which she held is Consols. She asked if he could
find her a better investment, and he seal he could find her •
mortgage at five per cent. He sold out the Consols, re-
ceived 1,1281., and told Hiss Bandrtte that he had invested
it oa mortgage at five per amt. That repreeentaticio was
untrue as to all but 2001. He wrote to her on the Nat
May, stating that 5001. was ievested on yropssiy in the Hall.
Bayswater, and 6001. on deposit of ti el
at Finehley, and that tits &ode anddociaments welleg:e
sited at his bankers, in a tin bog bearing her name.
vas untrue. He had need the mosey fee p at his
own, and lent it to other pee*. Had paid Mies
Budget% interest halflearly.

Mr. Linklater read a letter from the banhcopt to Kiss
Basalgette, in which he proposed to give, with Mr. Gaudin,
• joint bond for 1,1001.
The bankrupt said the bond for 1,1001. was sent, together
with s mortgage seduity for 2001. The bond was returned.
After seedier that letter he remained in Paris Ile re-
IIIIIIII•11 in Lewes gaol from June to August. ifies Basal.
get% bad lost her 9001., but it was his intention to pay.
Mr.Unklater urged, that instead of protecting the young
lely the bankrupt had abused the confidence reposed in
him se an attorney. He had been guilty of deliberate me.
representation.
Mr. Sargood urged that Miss Bazalgette had condoned
the breach of trust by emoting a bond for the amount.
She bad known for three years of the irregularity of the
traemotion, and had treated the matter all along as • debt,
sad thecoart was consequently disabled from looking at the
transeetion in any other light.
He Honour did not think that there bad been any coo.
denten. Miss Baralgette had carefully guarded herself
against that, and it had been expressly decided that the
receiving of interest in respect of the money misappropreted
was not • condonation. (See Hap. Selby, 6, He Otx and
Norton.) Theprovisso at the end of the 159th section relieved
the bankrupt from liability to imprisonment. Whether the
offence wee committed on the receipt of the money or its
misappropriation was immaterial, as both were long before
the passing of the new act. But taking into consideration the
circumstances under which the debt had been contracted, as
the court was required to do, and the misrepresentation'
which bad been made by the bankrupt after receiving the
money, it was clear that he had no means of repaying that
debt when required to do so. There were also circumstances
of aggravation : the bankrupt was • solicitor ; the lady was
living under his roof ; and he had represented to her that
he Gould procure her better interest. When the imposition
was detected be had offered the joint bond of himself sad
Goodell, who was in as bad • position as himself. The cane
was of such • grave nature that the court was bound to visit
it with the Wooed severity, and to withhold the order of
discharge altogether.