The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-09 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHECWER.-Y1
Barium is Basco.

The bushier dispeeed olyestudaz afforded no matethli
whatever for a newspaper report. T. wily new trial case
lulled involved the constructios of an spreentent between
the parties, and was totally devoid of general interest.
_

irk. • Pints AT

-Booms jig.. BAY= PARKS Me •

NIA'. 1. BASIL THE IDIVALN BL UM AND LLD
Corm.

Tab was an setion o I recover W sum of 641. 7.. for
work and labour., and on account stated. The defendant
paid 475 into mart, and pleaded that beyond that sum Ito
was not indebted; he aka pleaded a set off. Mr. W H.
Watson and Mr. E. James were for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Crowder for thedetendant.

The plaintiff L an engineer ; the defendant a person if
fortune, a director of an association milled the " Ibtrnian
Silver and Lead Ore Company," formed in 1848, for the
purpose of woiking certain mines in Spain. In 1847 Mon-
sieur Volney, the projector and manager of the company,
entered into an agreement with the plaintiff's father, by
which the latter wee engaged to procure and superintend
the erection of certain machinery necessary to carry on the
raining operations ; the agreements also stipulated that the
company ware to pay the wages of en assistant, at the rate of
st. per week. Mr. Neal, see., employed his eon the present
plaintiff. in that capacity. The plaintiff and his father
arrived in Spain on the 23rd of September, 1847, and they
were engaged on the works till their completion in Match
following. They were making_ preparations at Aquiloa to
return to England. when M. Volney entered invo another
agreement, by which the plaintiff was to remsia in Spain to
superintend the mechanical details of the works at his old
rate of payment, viz., 3/. per week. Sometime after the
elder Neal left for Zeeland, Si. Volney intimated to the plain-
tiff that as he was short of money he could only pay him one
pound a week while he remained in Spain, but that when he
returned to England the balance should be paid to him at
the offices of the company. The plaintiff assented to this
proposition, and continued in his emoltlment. In August
he returned to England, and on the 22nd of that month ap-
plied at the office of the company in London for payment of
the sum due to him ; but as his claim was not liquidated the
present proceedings were commenced against the defendant
as one of the directors of the company.
Mr. Crowder submitted that there was no case for the jury.
The action, he contended, had been brought by the wrong
person—by son lanced of the father, with whom the
contract had been made. If there had been any buten of
contract, the father, as the contracting party, should have
been the plaintiff.
Mr. Baron Parke said it was clear from the wording of
the egreement that the father had made a contract for the
um, and, therefore, there was a cue for the decision of the
AU.
Mr. Crowder then addressed the jury for the defendant.
He contended that whatever the original agreement might
have been, by the second agreement the plaintiff was only
to have one pound a week from the time that the machinery
had been completed till his return to England. The learned
counsel also urged in support of his cue a statement made
by M. Volney that some portions of the machinery had been
broken in consequence of neglect by the pLintff, and th.t
the company had thereby sustained great loss and Amalie.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YEsTEaDiy.
Issues YL Communes, Fars.
IN RR J. BURNRAII.—MRJRRPREBENTRTION.
This was an application by the bankrupt, a draper, of
Edgewate-road, for his certificate. Mr. Liuklater supported.
Mr. Lucas opposed on behalf of the assignees (Mr. Brad-
bury, of the firm of Bradbury, Greateex, and Co., and Mr.
De Bas, of the firm of De Bu and Co.).
It appeared generally from the statement of Mr. Lucas,
and the evidence of Mr. Bradbury, that the bankrupt had
been in business for some years, up to 1842, at Downbam, io
' Norfolk. He had there been punctual in his payments, and
was supposed to have retired from business with means stile-
that to summed him as a gentleman kee ping his hunter. In
August, 1844, he eame to London, and told Mr. Bradbury,
with whose house ho had for many years extensive and satis-
factory dealings whilst at Dowaham, that he was
desirous of purchasing a desirable business, and had •
capital of about 2.0001. Mr. Bradbury being a trustee of an
old business in Edgewarevoed, recommended it to his
notice, and eventually the bankrupt entered upon it, giving
6501. for the lease and goodwill. Beta., opening an ac-
count with Messrs. Bradbury and Co , the bankrupt re-
quested them to act as his referee s,*and they consented to do
so, en his producing his bank-bock, showing a sum of
1,9001. to his credit, and stating that the money was his
own. Ti fogs went on until about October, 1848, when the
bankrupt requested Messrs. Bradbury and Co. to renew a
bill for 1471, and give him further credit, and they did
so upon his producing a statement, showing his
stock and other property to be 2,3771., and his debts
1,1121., leaving a clear surplus of 2,3771. In January, 1849,
the bankrupt called on Mee,. Price and Edwards, the
inconstant., and acting under their advice immcdtatele
made an assignment to his creditors, the balance-sheet now
shoving hie debts to be 5,2161., and his assets about 2,3001.
The bankrupt now states that the 1,9001. mentioned in the
bank book was not his own, but money borrowed of Me.
Smith, his brother in-law. A letter was produced from the
bankrupt. in which he expresses the deepest sorrow at
having made the false statement that the money was his
own, and that that statement had been the cause of the
whole of his subsequent errors. Ile had made the repre-
sentation without due consideration of its comae queues ; he did
it from no dishonest motive, and he deeply deplored his error.
Mr. Linklater urged upon the court the favourable cir-
cumstances of the case. lie admitted that his client had
been culpable, but he believed he had been guilty only of an
innocent misrepresentation. From the past dealings be had
had with bleier?. Bradbury and Co., and his character at
Downbam, there could be no doubt but those gentlemen,
and the other houses in the trade would have given him
credit without that representation. The bankrupt was not
one of those who had not bad capital. lie commenced at
Downbam with a capital of his own of 1,6001., and had hon-
ourably paid ale his engagements, relinquishing it wi h • ca-
pital reduced to 4001. lie had subsequently borrowed the
1 9001. of hisbrother-in-law ; he had further in 1845 and 1846
borrowed of his r.lations additional sums of 7601., and he had
introduced a sum of 5001. on his marriage. AU this it
had been hie tristhrtane to lose in the business ti at bad been
recommended to him by Messrs. Bradbury and Co. Ile had
not given any peen rence to his relations, but finding it im-
possible to carry on his trade without loss, he had es early as
1847 unsuccessfully sought :to dispose of the business, and
when at lergth it became necessary to stop payment, he had
done so under untimely favourable circumstances. There
were assets t the amount of 2,0001. which he might have
assigned to his relations, who were creditors; all his pay-
ments were vouched for ; his books had be n kept with pe r
et accuracy, and his personal expenditure had been
moderate. *lle trusted that these circumstances might
be considered such a comperisation for the errors which
he had °cumin( d that the mut would be induced to grant
him his certificate.

His amour said that the bankrupt had been guilty not
only of one misrepresentation but he had committed a second.
It WWI impossible for the court not to mark strongly its situ
of this conduct. On the other band there were several
circumstances which told very much in his favour. He
had not, as mar y bankrupts do, given a preference to his
relations. He had express-d the deepest sorrow fir his con-
duct, and the two case, of misrrpresentstion were almost the
only imputations upon his conduct. He felt that the justice
of the cue would be met by a suspension (tithe certificate for
two years, anti the bankrupt's releue ordered in the event
of any creditor detaining him in prison six months.

THB POLICE CO URTS.
MARYLEBONE, _
__

AN UNHAPPY 14481114011. Mr. C. F. Higgins was
charged with having, while in a state of intoziestion, gone
to the residence of his wife, Amelia Virtue Higgins, in
Upper Montague-street, oa the evening of the 29th ult., and
aseaul•ed her.
The complainant (a de'icate.looking lady, apparently
not more than 24 year, of age). is the daughter of Sir
Francis Paul Jodrell, residing in Portland-place. The mar-
riage between her and defendant was without the know-
ledge or consent of her parents ; and from statements made
by her from time to time at this court, she had ample rea-
sons for regretting the step she bad taken. Some particulars
connected with proceedings before Mr. Broughton nave al-
reedy appeared ; and it will be renumbered that defendant
has figured at this court upon former evasions within the
last two mouths. He race was fined fte. for being drunk,
upon his promising faithfully not to annoy his wi'e in future;
and on his being brought up a second time fur a violent
assault upon her, he wu held to bail in a heavy amount for
Oie kreping the prune for three months The allreatiun
made in the warrant for which defendant wee now brought
up wee clearly made out by the evidence of Mrs. Higgime
and the laoulady of the house in which ehe resides. She
has for some time put ceased to live with defendant.
The defendant, on being asked what ha had to say, alleged
that all he wanted was that some articles belonging to him
should be given up. He promised that he would not molest
his wile again, and he was willing to enter into his own re-
eogisisance In any sum that might be required.
Mr. Long, taking into consideration the facts nsw put
forth, coupled with what had prevlluely transpired, told de-
fendant that he should ri quire him, in addition to his own
recognisance in 2001, to had two sureties in 1001. each, for
his appearence at the sessions, to answer any charge that
might be preferred against him,
Being unable to comply with these condi ions he was
locked up, end on the arrival of the guernment van was
conveyed to prison.