The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-19 00:00:00

COURT OFEXCIIRQURR.-OVILDHALL.

Ntee il;l;.—Befors trlr Y. Voile& anti s Common Jury.
JeerittiT v Kerr.—The plaintiff is the public officer of
tit. North Wilts Banking Con pany, and this w.,a an action
brought to recover the amount of it bill drawn on the de.
fendant by one/Canning, and accepted by him. it appeared
that the bill having been discounted by the com
party had been sent up_ to London to be pre-
seated by their agents, Messrs. Drewett and Co., to
the defendant for acceptance. The defendant at first
declined to accept it, but after a short interval the hill was
presented again, and left as usual for his acceptance. In mew-
quence of the peculiar circumstance of its former refusal,
tilt sus. Drewett forgot to send fur the bill on the second oc-
cesion till the day before maturity, when their messenger
called for it. He that saw a clerk, who Raid he knew nothinz
about it ; but he itherwards spoke to the non of the defend.
ant. an intelligent youth of 15, who had on former occasions
delivered accepted hills. The boy ales at first said lie knew
nothinr about the bill, but on the man's raying it was of
wrist consequence to get it he turned to the hill book, end
finding an entry there of such en accepted bill, he looked in
the iron safe where bills were sometimes put for security,
and finding it there accepted by his father, he handed it
over to the messenger. It so happened that
on that day Mr. Kemp had returned from Trow-
bridge, the residence of Mr. Canning, to which place he
had gone to make inquiries about him, intending, if they
were unsatisfactory, to give orders not to deliver the 101 l
which he had accepted and put by in the iron chest for
safety, before he went out of town. The inquirii s were un-
satisfactory, but the defendant had not given saw such orders
to his non or clerk, and went out to 'Change. In his absence
the circumstances 'above detailed took place. As soon as ho
was informed of the occurrence he went to Messrs. Drewett
and demanded the bill, but they initiated on retaining it,
chit fly he cause they knew nothing of the circumstances, and
be reuse the defendant admitted that if they had sent fur the
bill boon alter ha had accepted it lie should have delivered it
to them es his acceptance without any hesitation. The de-
fendant, however, gave directions to his bankers to dishonour
the bill,-and this action woe brought to enforce payment.—
Sir F. Pollock told the jury that the only doubtful fact in
the ease was the intention of the defendant when he accepted
the bill and put it by in therafe. If the jury thought that when
the bill was accepted it was done in the ordinary sense of that
word, and with the intention of issuing it as the acceedenee
of the defendant, then he, Sir F. Pollock, was of opinion
that in point of law it was a valid acceptance, though de-
livered by the eon of the defendant without his authority,
and under circumstances in which, if he had been consulted,
lie would have cancelled his acceptance. If, however, he
had put his name to tho bill with the intention of issuing it
only if he was satidli il of the drawer's solvency, and that
he had put it by for safety with the purpose of not inuing
it till ho hail so satidied himself, then the acceptance 1/.0
not in law binding on him, and he could not be mode re-
sponsible for the bill so incidentally delivered by his eon. -
The jury, without much hesitation, found a verdict fur the
pleinutf for Nil. principal and interest.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. C.tmmia.turser Shepherd.
RECKLESS TMADINCI.—ItKEEATED FAILIIKES.—The cer-
tifleate of E. Moseley, wine-merchant of Upper Oloncester.
street, was op potted by Mr. Murray, for the assignees, and
supported by Mr. Lawranee.—lt appear.' that he hod berm
a bankrupt before, and had twice made arrangements with
his creditors, the last time being in 1845, since which hr
had contracted about 1,500/. of debts. It was contended
that such a person, who could never acquire sufficient
property to satisfy the claims of his former creditors, ought
not to he allowed again to enter into business.—Mr. Lew-
ranee urged that this would be a great injustice, not only
to the assignees, hut to his former creditors, who would
thereby be deprived of the chance, remote as it might be, of
his acquiring property, on which they had a legal claim,
until 15s. in the pound of his old debts was liquidated
The total refusal of a certificate wee a sentence of
perpetual mercantile proscription, which ought only
to be inflicted in very extreme cues. Here the
books were accurately kept • sure test of the
bankrupt's intentions to trade honestly.—The Commitoini rr
said ha should suspend the certificate on two grounds —th.
bankrupt having been guilty of recklies trading, and his
pledging cerium wine-warrants which bail come into his
poression. The certificate must he suspended fur eighteen
months. Protection weagranted for three months.
Meet:ran Aesers.—Frederick Peaie and John Jillir es.
drapers, of Moulton and Woilpit, came up for their last
examination. The cue was a very complicated one. The
bankrupts had dissolved partnership some two years ago,
Peaks purchasing Jillings's interest in the business at
Iloniton. Both joint and separate fiats had been taken out,
and a variety of questions had arisen, some of which had
been referred to the Vice-Chancellor, u to what were joint
and what were separate assete, the dissolution not having
horn (NI, IT! AAAA f•fl Olt th• tin% no. until Augu•t, 1847,
After a protracted argument, the Commissioner said he was
of opinion that the stock-in-trade at Honitoc, having been
fully conveyed to Peake before the bankruptcy, should be
treated es his separate estate ; hut in order to consider the
matter more fully, he would adjourn the point until the
audit meeting. The joint debts of the bankrupts are 1,132/,
and of l'eake 2061. The estate is expected to produce 1,500/.
or 1,8001.

Before Mr. ConnuasionerGoulbuns.
MllBllllB. ALKIANDEII .11/41) CO.'S LIANKRI:PTCV.—An
audit and dividend meeting was appointed under this bank-
ruptcy to-day, in the separate estates.—`Some conversation
arose as to certain disputed elision on the joint estate ; but
the parties not being agreed on the facts his Honour said
the matter had better ho deferred.—Mr. Lawrence called
attention to a proof which had been placed on the proceed-
ings by mistake, and asked that it should be expunged.—
This was done by consent of the assignees.—Mr. Lawrence
then tendered a proof for 2,0001. and interest, on the separate
estate of Mr. Alexander, in respect of • debt due to Miss
Alexander, his sister.—Mr. Alexander was examined, and
stated that the money was lent him eight years ago, without
his giving any steurity. The money was not lent to
the firm, although it appeared in their hooks as •
debt to the hen; he paid the interest himself, hut
drew on the firm for it.—Mr. Rees, for the assignees,
opposed the proof, on the ground that the lady could
at any time have enforced her debt against the firm in a
court of law.—Aßer hearing Mr. Lawrence, in support of
the ➢roof, his Honour bid that it could not he received,
considering that the entries in the books of the firm, for
several years put, uniformly showed the debt to he owing
by the firm.—Mr. Lawrence intimated that he should carry
the question to the Court of Review, and asked that the
.lividend should he reserved until it was decided.—His
Honour said he understood there would be enough to pay
the separate creditors 20e. in the pound, and hi lice this
application; far the dividend on the joint estate might
perhaps not exceed 4s.

BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT.
Before Mr. D. D. Heath, JUGge.
HARDY V. BROWN AND ANOTHEIL—RIGHT OP RAIL-
WAY PASSENOERS To TAILS FORCIBLE POsSFANION or
THEIR LUOOAOE WITHOUT DESCRIBING IT.—This was an
action brought by Mr. F. A. Hardy, of Cumberland-terrace,
Regent's-park, to recover compensation in damages fora tree-
pus and asnault committed upon him by the defendants
Brown and Evans, porters in the service of the London and
North Western Railway. The question wa4, whether •
passenger by railway has a right to take forcible poss. ssion
of his luggage from the officers of a railway company without
first of all giving them a proper description if it.—Mr.
Parry, in opening the case for the prosecution, said
that Mr. Hardy was in the habit of constantly
visiting the midland empties, being compelled to travel by
the North Western Railway. On the 29th of March he kit
Northampton by the train which arrived in London at a
quarter to 4 o'c:oek. The first thing he did on his arrival
was to hire a c.,b, and he then went to the luggage van to
secure his portmanteau, his father's servant, who had conio
to meet him, being with him at the time. lie asked the
porter for his portmanteau, and was asked where he came
from, and replied from Northampton, at the name time
pointing out the van in which he had placed it. He pointed
the trunk out, and claimed it, referring the porter to the
servant as to his knowledge of the trunk being his (Mr.
Its-dy's) property. Mr. Hardy then returned to the cab, ex-
pecting the porter would bring the trunk ; the servant, how-
ever, came, and said the porter would not give it up. The
plaintiff then went bark, and as the porter refused to
deliver up the trunk Mr. Hardy took hold of it. The in-
stant he did so Evans struck him very violently with his
elbow, and he tell against the van, the other defendant
Brown wrenching the portmanteau out of his hand. This
was the assault complained of. The trunk being forcilily
taken from him Mr. Hardy want in search of some of ti e
superior officers of the company. The porters called Inspector
Daulby, who refused to take Mr. Hardy into custody, but
directed them to give him up the trunk. This wee done,
and the next day Mr. Hardy called upon Capt. Huish, the
manager of the line, to report the conduct of these two men,
when, greatly to his surprise, Capt. Haigh justified their
conduct in every particulsr. Mr. Hardy said he would
he satisfied if an apology were made, and a letter was
sent by his selicitors, Messrs. Carpenter and Ward,
demanding one, but it was unsuccessful ; and even now Mr.
Hardy would be satisfied if an apology were given. Mr.
Hardy was then examini d, and bore out the statement of
his counsel in every particular. On cross-examination by
Mr. Clarkson, he said : " The trunk had • braes-plate, with
initials upon It, but I did not give any description of it to
the porters, because in the hurry and confu‘ion I forgot all
about it. brown asked me if there was say mark upon the
portmanteau, and I said no. He then said he could not de-
liver It to me, because there was a name upon it. I said, " do
you mean to detain my property ? " and Brown replied that,
by the rules of the company, it was more than he dared t
deliver up property without it was properly described, and
until I properly described what was upon it he could not
give it up. Neither of the porters asked me my name.—
?dr. Clarkson addressed the court, and said he would ad-
mit that he deMsded the two men by direction of their
highly respectable employer', who felt bound to protect
their servants in the discharge of their duties, and who by
declining to present to Mr. Hardy any apology for their
conduct in this case, were of opinion that they would have
failed to discharge the duty they ewe to themselves and to
the public generally if they had not resisted to the utmcst a
case like the present. The learned gentleman here, at
great length, adverted to the conduct of the plaintiff in with-
holding front the defendants the only description that w 0414