The Express.
London, England, 1855-02-27 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAR-FEB. 26.

1111110111 1? NM lila, li

ILL avrnac cicarDu

.-- - - -
•MD ♦ 001010111 7477.

ZEDFORD V.

TMs was an action upon a bill of exchange for 301., drawn
by Mr. Bedford, of whom the plaintiff was widow and exe-
cutrix, and accepted by the defendant. There were several
pleas upon the record, but the defence relied upon was
that the bill had bees given for money won by gaming.
It appeared that Mr. Bedford had formerly kept • betting
office, in Castle-street, Leicester-square, and that the defen-
dant was employed u superintendent of the coffee-room at
the Conservative Club. The defendant admitted Die hand-
writing to the bill, but his case was that on the 10th Feb-
ruary, 1864, he gave Mr. Bedford • bill for 401.; that sum
being composed of 101. money Drat, and 301. due for bete.
This bill was:snowed on the 11th April for six weeks ; and
the defendant stated that subsequently he applied to Mr.
Bedford for another renewal, and it was agreed that the
defendant should pay the 101. borrowed, and that • bill
should be given for the 301. for the bets. Accordingly, on
the Bth July, the bill now sued on was given. The Wen-
dt/at had paid the plaintiff 11. on account, and subsequently
told her the bill had been given for betting transactions,
but that if she would let the matter .stand over she should
not lose anything through him.
The plaintiff was called, and she stated that she had
looked through her late husband's books, but could not find
that the bill had been given en account of bets.
The jury stopped the case, and gave a verdict for the
plaintiff for 301.13 e. 9d.

COURT OF FICHEQUER.—Faz. 26.
SITTINGS AT NISI ?MS AT GVILDNALL . A7TI2. T1231.-1/1012 TI

MID Ca= WON AND AIONDIAL MST.
The sow= which came before the court to-day were of 3
puenl lamest.
SECOND COURT.
enumee AT am

Ali DZ. BARON MAIM AND SPEC.
nun.

LSE AND OTHIIIII 0. NART.—BANDRIIPTCY •
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs as assignees
of one Peters, a bankrupt, to recover from the defendant
Moss Hart, of St. Mary Axe, the value of certain goods
which they alleged be had obtained by way of a fraudulent
preference and by colltisiou. It appeared that Peters was
formerly a draper in a small way of business at Southamp-
ton, having started with a capital of about 7001. He carried
on business for a little mon than six mouths, at Vie expira-
tion of which time he petitioned the Bankrutcy Court, and
was, on the 16th of April, 1864, adjudged a bankrupt. The
assignees, on looking into his affairs, found that the value
of his stock-in-trade, furniture, itc., was 2,5931. le. Bd., and
his debts 8,9861. Os. 9d., showing a deficiency of
8,3911. 19s. Id. The plaintiffs being at a loss to account for
so great a deficiency, set inquiry on foot, and at last disco-
Tared that the defendant had fora considsrsble time been
purchasing the goods which the bankrupt had obtained on
credit at a reduction of 40 or 60 per cent. on the invoice
pries, but for which he had paid cash. It was further
alleged by the plaintiffs that Peters had, on the 31st of
March, previous to his petitioning the court, committed an
act of bankruptcy, in having assigned certain goods to thei
defendant.
Mr. Baron Martin, in summing up, told the jury there
wen two points for their consideration : first, did they be.
the sales from Peters to the defendant were real bona
fide sales, the one bargaining for the goods and the other
disposing of them at as high a price as be could obtain ? If
they considered that to be so it did not amount to an act of
bankruptcy. Oa the other hand, it they were of opinion
that there had been no bona fide sale, the plaintiffs would
be entitled to their verdict. Secondly, was the transaction
of the Met of March an act of bankruptcy t If they believed
the goods had been assigned to the defendant on his press-
ing Peters for his debt, he did nothing more than he was
justified in doing in order to secure himself.
TIM jury having consulted for a short time, returned a
verdict fee the defendant.

ADMIRALTY COURT.-FEE. 26.
■IPOIt DL WIEDIOTOW.
THE JOEL

This was another of the Sorenson cues, but there was
little to distinguish it from thou which have been already
heard. In the former cases the transactions were alleged
to be between the father and eon, and in the present they
were between Mr. Gamper, a Russian subject, and the
father and sea. The claim was given in on behalf of Mr.
Somme, jun., on the ground that the transfer of the
vessel had been made to him, he being a Danish subject,
by his father. The ship sailed from Liban on the bth of
last May, laden with linseed, and bound for London. In
June she was seised in the London Docks. It was alleged
the John was sold in March or April last, at which time the
Russian papers were exchanged for Danish.
The Queen's Advocate, Dr Phillimore, and Dr. Dayford,
appeared for the Crown; and Drs. Addams and Twiss for
the elaisaant.
The court reserved judgment.