The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-11 00:00:00

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Wore Mr. Ccommlarborser Evans.

IN RN EDWARD TIBR ET.—JUDOMENT.—Tins bankrupt,
• diamond merchant, applied for Isis certificate on Wednes-
day last, when the court deferred giving judgment till this
day (Friday).—His Honour now said: In the year 1846 the
bankrupt sustained some severe losses, and applied to his
creditors to give Dim time to discharge his debts. By his
statement at that time he made it appear that he would
have a surplus of several hundred pounds. The creditors
agreed to hie proposition, which wsa to pay by three instal-
ments at six, twelve, and eighteen months. It appears to
me that the bankrupt was incorrect as to the amount of
both debts and assets. I canned avoid expressing my opinion
that such arrangements are generally disadvantageous both
to the debtor and the creditors. The debtw, after years of
struggling, is generally obliged to become • bankrupt, and
the creditors would probably find they are not gainers
by such proceedings. The granting of the es rtiticate was
objected to upon three grounds : First, that the bankrupt had
not delivered up the whole of his property. The point was
premed on the last examination, but I was not.
nor am I now, satisfied with the proof. The fact that
the bankrupt values his stock at a very considerable sum,
and that the assignees cannot obtain one-fourth of the value,
affords ground for suspicion ; but that is not sufficient. That
point, therefore, is dismissed. The next objection was, that,
knowing he was insolvent, he incurred debts with Mr. I
Johnson and Mr. Price. Although the creditors who were
parties to the arrangement could not complain of the bank-
rupt incurring such debts, yet the debtor, after such an ar-
rangement, is not justified in incurring fresh dcbts without
disclosing his position. However, at the time of the con..
traction of Mr. Johnson's and Mr. Price's debts, the back-
rapt must have known that he was hopelessly insolvent, and
in their cases he appears to have told deliberate falsehoods
in order to induce these creditors to give hint credit. It
was also cbjected to him that he premised three of the cre-
ditors to give them additional security, and tkt in order to
do so he induced his fatherdndlaw to give a security for
1,1001., and that instead of using the security for the pur-
pose specified he lodged it as a security with his bankers.
there is no evidence that he corn:nitwit any [mad upon his
father-in-law, but it appears that the bankrupt was guity of
a great neglect of hi; duty when tic pledg. d his most
valuable goods to his bridherdn-law to tree tatterda-law
from himresponsibility on the security for 1,1001. This does
appear to me be a fr►ud on the creditors deserving
punishment I therefore adjourn the certificate for twelve
months. The particular day will be specified by the officer.
—Suspended accrtiffingly.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
Before Mr. Comminioner Harris.
IN RE SAMUEL LEWIS LAZARUS, INOWN AS SAMUEL
LAWRENCE.—ALLEGED FRAUD By A HORSB-DEALER.—
This ineolvent, a horse-dealer in Oxford-street, who has
twice been a bankrupt, was opposed by Mr. Sargood for Mr.
Markham, a couch-builder and horse-dealer in Luigham.
place. In February, 1846, Mr. Markham accepted a bill
of 901. for the insolvent, on the representation that he was
going into the country to purchase hones, some of which
Mr. Markham was likely to require, and the 901.—which
would be a convenience to the insolvent—might be deducted
from the price of the horses which Markham would probably
buy. This bill became due in May, 1846. In April of that
year Markham bought horses of the insolvent to the amount
of 1331., and upon his promise to meet the 901. bill when
it should be presented, consented to give the insolvent
an acceptance for the whole amount. In May, Markham
heard nothing of the 901. bill, and concluded that the in-
' solvent had—according this promise—paid it. In August,
however, when the 1331. became due, Markham inquired if
the insolvent had paid the 901., and was told that he had
done so, and that the bill was in his cash-box. Markham,
therefore, paid the 1331., and heard nothing of the 901. bill
till June of this year, when insolvent admitted he had only
psid 301. of it, and that it was in the hands of a third party,
who was impatient for a settlement. Mr. Markham c on-
aented to accept another bill for 1201., in order to meet the
901., Insolvent stating at the time, that if Mr. Markham
would give him his acceptance, he (insolvent) worrld set it
discounted, pay the 001. bill, and in an hour would hand
over the difference to Markham. The insolvent obtained
Mr. Markham's signature and got the money, but never
gave it to him (Markham), and ultimately, the bill having
passed into a third party's hands, Mr. Markham had to meet
it.—Mr. Commissioner Harris said if there was any person in
court who mold doubt that the 1201. bill affair was a trend of
the roastpalgabla kind, he might take time to consider the
matter; but, as it appeared to his that dishonesty of a most
flagrant description was on the lam of the transaction, he
should remand the insolvent for 11 months from the vesting
order.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Before D. C. Boylan, Esq.,.fhdp.
MILLER V. LORD DUDLEY STUART, M.P.—THIS LATE
MARYLIRONE ELECTION.—ThiI was an action brought by
John Miller against the noble lord the member for Mary-
lebone, to recover 61. for loss of time and services rendered
to his lordship at the recent election. Mr. P. Banks, who
appeared as counsel for the noble defendant, said Mr. Ro-
nald', hie lordship's attorney, bad that moment received a
letter from the plaintiff which he would read :
My Lord,—ltils is to inform your lordship, that as an acquaintance
of your lordship's has promised to came forward and settle the little
pecuniary muter of 51. between us, it now will not be neoeseary for
your lordship to attend to the summons at the Westminster County
Courton the 10th WM. (Sigurd) J. Mussa.
The plein.iff having withdrawn from the cause, he (Mr.
Banks) oaths part of the noble lord, had to apply for costs,
as he should show that there was net the slightest founda-
tion for the claim, hut that it wet an impudent attempt to
obtain money. He made the application for costa, although
there was every probability of their sever being paid,
more for the purpose of deterring other persons
equally unknown to his lordship, from harassing
him than to punish the plaintiff, who was totally unknown
to him. Mr. Banks proceeded to read a letter from the
plaintiff to his lordship, wherein he stated that, admiring
the noble lord's disinterested conduct in coming forward as
a candidate, he had refused 10s. a day offered him by the
committee for the City election, " had driven Mr. Harvey
from the field for ever," and taken great trouble to further
his lordship's election, and concluded by expressing hie con-
viction that his lordship would not suffer the writer's sacri-
fices and trouble to pass unremunerated. Upon the receipt of
this letter his lordship, to avoid the plaintiffs importunities
for the future, ordered his attorney to pay him 61. This was
done, to the great gratification of the plaintiff ; but the day
after it was paid another letter was received, in which phin-
tiff acknowledged the receipt of the fit, but " never for a
moment supposed that a lest sum tkan 101. would have been
offered." The result was, that his lordship referred the
plaintiff to Mr. Ronald,. 'To that gentleman, and also to
his lordship's secretor', several letters were written, in which
the plaintiff spoke of his lordship's proud position in Mary-
lebone being due to him, for he only bad caused the retire-
ment of Mr. Harvey. Finding it impossible to get any '
more money out of Lord Dudley Stuart, another letter was
sent to his lordship, in which the plaintiff said ho had ns
alternative but to appeal to the County Court fir justice,
" • proceeding which he greatly regretted being driven to,
as he was sorry the liberal cause would buffer by the expose."'
The learned judge thought quite enough had been stated by
the counsel to entitle him to the costa of counsel, attorney,
and one witness, which he would order to be paid in a month.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
Wore Mr. &lout. Mom.
This was the clay appointee for hearing appeals for the
December sessions.

BTaAM NAVIGATION OF MI THANZIL—An appeal wu
made at the lut appeal day against a comiction by Mr.
Yardley, the magistrate, of J. Pattison for having un-
lawfully commanded a steam boat on the Thames. Tire con
viction was made under the by-laws of the' Watermen's
Company. The court now proceeded to deliver its judg-
ment. —The learned Judge sad this was art appeal by Patti-
son against a conviction by which he had toed subjected to
a fine fur having been in command of one of the Gravesend
and Blackwell steam-boats without being liceesed by the
Company of Lightermen and Watermen. The by-law
under which the conviction took place had been carefully
perused. It was framed by the Court of Aldermen for the
regulation of the navigation of the Thames, but the conclu-
sion the court had arrived at with respect to that by-law
was that it was quite inconsistent with the tidal regulations,
and contrary to the statute under which it was framed. It
enacted that no person but • freeman of the Waterman's Com-
pany should command any "lighter, wherry, or other craft,"
plying for hire between Yantlet Creek and Windsor, and
that every such freeman so commanding should hold a
license from the Watermen's Company, and from the Court
of Aldermen, to exercise his privilege. The violation of these
stipulations subjected the party violating them to a fine for
every trip or voyage. The court was of opinion that the
terms on which this by-law was framed excluded steam-
boaft tram its authority. A steam-boat was not a " lighter,"
neither was it a " wherry ;" and although it had been deci-
ded by the Court of Queen's Beneb that the term " vessel"
comprised a " steam-boat," thiecourt could not see that a
steamer could be included In the term "craft." The court
therefore was of opinion, that as far as steam-boats were ma-
cerued the by-law was inoperative, and that it could sat
imperatively insist that the commander of a steamboat an
the Thames should be a freeman of the Water-
men's Company. In the present case the appellant
was ouch freeman, though the court was disposed
to think that the Court of Aldermen had no power to 00111-
pel the captains of steam-boats to be such freemen, at least
under their present by-laws. It WY not, however, epos
that point that the court had to decide. The convictios was
for not carrying a certain license which, by by-laws framed by
the Court of Aldermen and the Watermen's Company, was
requisite for the privilege of being a freeman. The by-law
which said that no steam-boat should be navigated unless it
carried this license contained a prevision that a fee of one
shilling should be paid for such license. New, the Court of
Aidamm clearly had no eathority to grant these licenses
upon terms, and in framing Ma by-law the Court of
Aldermen had ',ideally forgetter that her Majesty's sub-
ject/could not be taxed without the dingo authority of en
art of yarLiantant, and in coasting that dab/ foe the limas

the Court of Aldermen seemed to him to be reviving a sye-
tem which, in the reign of Charles 1., acquired some noto-
riety—via, the levying of ship money. A freeman of the
Watennen's Company was entitled to navigate any vessel
on the Thames; and he considered that, under the statute,
the Court of Aldermen had the power to compel
steam-boat captains to take out this license u this by-law
required. But the present by-law was clearly illegal, and
therefore, as this conviction had taken place because the
appellant had not taken out the license, the court could not
confirm the conviction. If the judgment of the court were
correct new by. laws were required for the regulation of the
navigation of the Thames. The question involve.' in the
present inquiry was without doubt one of too great import-
ance to be finally determined in that court. It wis im-
portant as it affected t►e jurisdiction and authority of the
Court of Aldermen; it was important to the interests of the
Watermen's Company—to those who commanded steamers
on the Thames; and it wan of especial importance to those
who ha I embarked large cspiral in the navigation of the
Thames and steam-boat traffic generally. Taking the point
as to the mode in which the license woo granted as the chief
ground of its decision, the court would order the conviction
to be quashed.
In another case, In which Stephen Mockley was appellant,
precisely the same points were involved, therefore the same
judgment quashed the conviction in that too.

POLICE.-YESTERDAY.
WESTMINSTER.—A CAB CASE.—Mr. T. C. Anstey,
M.P., charged 0. Lamb, a cab-driver, with attempting to
prevent his entrance into the vehicle.—Mr. Amity went in
defendant's cab at four o'clock the previous afternoon to the
House of Commons, where he alighted. As a gentleman,
who had accompanied him, had to return to Temple-bar, he
le t him to pay be fare. Complainant told the cabman at
the time he was set down, that he was late, end that the gen-
tleman would go back with him ; hut he did not remember
whether he said the gentleman would pay him. On leaving
the house at half-past 12 he maw the defendant, who de-
manded 12a. as his fare. Complainant asked to see his
badge, expresaing his willingness to pay him if he would
produce it, as in the event of its turning out that
anything was wrong he might have his remedy.
Defendant said he had not got his badge. Com-
plainant was about to get into another cab, when
the defendant called to the driver, " I give you notice you
can't take that gentleman—he's my fare." Defendant then
thrust himself between complainant and the cab, and pre-
vented his getting in, and finding it difficult to get in with-
out a personal struggle withdefendant be gave him into cus-
tody. If the defendant had shown him his badge he should at
once have paid him.—Defendant, in reply to the charge, said
he waited till complainant came out and asked him to pay
him, when he replied that he never told him to wait, but
would pay him 501. if he demanded it. He, however, never
offered to pay hint anything. He told complainant that the
badge was in his cab, and he would fetch it. Defendant ad-
mitted that he followed the gentleman and got before the
cab door to prevent his entering.—The constable, who took
defendant, proved seeing defendant take his badge out of his
cab on the way to the struion.—Mr. Anstey did cot know
whether the fare had;hcan paid by the ether gentleman as
he had not had an opportunity of ,eetng him since.—Mr.
Broderip ordered defendant to find bail for his appearance
on Monday next.
LAM METH.—PLATE ROBBERY.—./. Simpson slits Scott,
and Mary Ann Simpson alias Taylor, were re-examined.
charged with stealing plate and jewellery of the value of
1001., the property of Mr. J. Edwards.—Tae property had
been stolen on the evening of Sunday, the 31st of October,
while the family were at church, and two days after was
seen in the possession of the prisoners, one of whom, the
female, had been formerly in the service of Mr. Edwards.—
Without the production of further material evidence, the
prisoners were committed fla. trial.