The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-03 00:00:00

The Lord Chancellor said that if there was hilliness
enough for the court Without that case, it might stand over •
but the court conk' not allow a part of the day to lie lost'.
The parties or their solicitors were to n
blame for having the
cause set down, as they were not prepared, ad that they
knew last night.
The court wan occupied up to half- t four o'clock pas • with
other case% and the one above mentioned was, on Mr. Lee's
application, at the rising of the court, taken out of the list.
DAVIS V. CIIESTEIL—LIMITED ADMINISTEATION.—In
this appeal from a decision of the 'Vice-Chancellor of Eng-
land, the main question argued was, whether a defendant
who took tut limited letters of administration to an intestate
who had been; interested in the subject matter the suit
was sOffitientle "Instituted a renretentative of the intestate.,
1"" assisting been fullylrgued,
sue
The Lord Chancellor said he should cobsider the s.
that were cited, and also confer ve;ith
~t the
rojous Eceleanietical
Judges) on their practice in granti:4 admh,i, before
he could decide the question, If the practice he, that none
but a Itiuiman or Creditor of an intestate is entitled to full ,
administretion to constitute hint a proper representative,
and if the parties in this suit who were so entitled declined
to administer, justice ought not to be steeped from the,
plaintiff or other parties who did all that was in their power.
Before the vice-Chancellor of Enema.
SPOTTISWOODE O. CLARILE.—INJUNCTION.--COFTRIOIT ea
--PICTORIAL ALMANACK. —This wtill an application
behalf of the plaintiff, the well-known printer and pub-
lisher, for an injunction to restrain the defendant from
printing and publishing an almanaek, being an imitation of
a work published by the plaintiff, entitled The l'ictorial
Altnanack, Royal Year-Book, and Astronomical end
r,
with a woodcut in the corner representing the Obseefrvator dant
y
at Greenwich. The Almanack published by the den
was entitled in the same manner as that of the plaintiff,
with the addition of the words 0 Old Moore's Family
Almanack," and a description of the persons fur who
them it was
intended. An illustration was also placed in corner
representing the summit only of the Greenwich Hospital.
The general appearance of the defendant's almanackstrongly
resembled
that of the plaintiff's, and was considered likely
to injure its sale. Mr. Bethell and Mr. Hallett appeared
in support of the application. The Vice-Chancellor granted
the injunction.
TERRY O. AGAINST A GUARDI/..N FOR
AN ACCOUNT.—The arguments in this case (which was
reported in this paper on the 25th of November) were
concluded this morning. The suit was instituted against
the guardian of a young man, named Edward Edenden,
who was addicted red
his of excessive intemperance, which
had greatly impaired his intellects, for an account of moneys
said to have been paid to the defendant John Weeher, for
his benefit. Much evidenre was produced on behalf of the
plaintiff, the representative of Edward Edenden, who died
in 1842, for the purpose of proving that the defendant had
received the money in a fiduciary character, and evidence
was also produced by the defendant to show that he had
regularly handed over whatever he had received to Edward
Edenden, except when he was requested to pay bills on his
account.
The Vice-Chaacellor said, the only question was, whether
the evidence sufficiently proved that the detendantden. lie had acted
in a fiduciary character towards Edward Eden
thought it was clear that the young man through hie habits
of intemperance was at times unable to control himself, and,
in fact, was wanting in intellectual power, but, at other
times, when perfectly sober, he was capable of managing his
affair., and was well able to make his own will. It appeared
that the annuity to which to was entitled, amounting, et
first, to 5001., and afterwards to 1.0001. per annum, was paid
by his father's executors to Mr. Watcher, and by him was
handed over to the young man. His Honour considered that
the very act of receiving the money proved that the defend-
ant had taken upon himself a fiduciary character, and thatt it
was consequently coupled with a trust. Ile thouaht that he
evidence on both sides had been overstrained, and
some of the real facts lot sight of. What was now to be de-
cided was, whether he should allow an action at law to be
brought, or whether there should be an account taken in
equity. Ile coneidered, that under the circumstances of this
case, he should he deciding contrary to all the great principles
of the court if he did not hold that the defendand had acted
in a fiduciary character. An account must therefore be
taken of the moneys received by the defendant for the use of
Edward Edenden after the death of hie father.
THELLUSSON V. LORD RENDLESH AM.—SPECIFIC PEA-
FORMANCK OF AN AGREEMENT REFUSED ON THE GROUND
OE U eeenraieere.—This was a bill filed by Charles Thellus-
son, one of the descendants of Peter Thelltuwon, decessed,who
executed the well-known will of April, 1796, against the
present Lord Rendlesham, praying that he might be admit-
ted tenant of the Btexleworth estate in Yorkshire, under a
parol agreement made previous to the passing of an
act of parliament, under which the defendant entered
into the possession, and became the manager, of all
the property of the testator, for the benefit of different
branches of the Thellutieon family. The alleged agreement
was that in case the said act of parliament should be passed,
and a lease should be rantedg in pursuance thereof, the
plaintiff should have the right of becom'ng the tenant to the
lessee of Brodsworth-hall, to hold the same from year to
year for so long a time during the existence of anv such lease)
under the act of parliament as the plaintiff might choose, at
the fair annual rental or value of the same. A further
agreement was alleged to have been entered into, that the
plaintiff, who had sot then sufficient income to' occupy
Brodsworth-hall, should be allowed to de so et the expiration
of seven years. Tti 'Mil stated various communications be-
'Men menthe:* of the family to confirm these agreements.
A demurrer was put in, on the ground that the agreement
was not in writing, and that it was too vague for the court
to enforce.--Mr. J. Parker and M
Mr. Renshaw appeared in
support of the demurrer ; and Mr. Bethel! and r. Heaven
for the bill.
The Vice-Chancellor said it was perfectly true that the
court could enforce family agreements of this nature
used , but
then it was necessary that such terms should be as
would explain the intention of the parties. The agreement
alleed to have been made in this case was, that the plaintiff
should be at liberty thold the property for as long a time as
he might choose at a fair rental. According to this he might
choose to be tenant for 100 years, and how was the fair
rental to be determined The whole affair was left in so
vague a state that it was impossible for the court to enforce
the performance of the agreement. The demurrer must
therefore be allowed.

Before VW-Chancellor Wigram.
Iluoitga v. LIPSCOMBE.—VENDOR AND PURCHASES..
The facts of the case are mentioned in our impression of yes-
terday. Upon the question of costs, the decision upon which
had been reserved, his Honour now observed, that
and the
w pur-
chaser, whose purchase was sought to he set aside, ho
had taken no part in the squabble in the auction-room,
should, at all events, be protected as to costs. The proper
course appeared to be, to make the usual order for opening
the biddings, and to direct the cost of the affidavits and of the
motion to be paid by the mover.
PRESTON V. WILSON.—REDEM
wPTIhi ON
was argued in SUTT.—Ilis Honou
Nov Nov.
delivered judgment in this case, ch
last. The bill was an ordinary bill for the redemption of
premises, which were mortgaged to the defendant for 1,2401.
The relief was resisted by the defendant, on the ground that,
by an indenture dated on the 17th December, 1842, the
plaintiff, in consideration of five guineas, had conveyed
ty of redemption in the premises to the de-
fhe equity uitendant. This, on the other hand, was denied by
the plaintiff, who stated that he had been induced to sign the
indenture in question upon the representation, and under the
belief, that it was merely an authority to the tinanta to pay
their rents to the defendant as mortgagee in possession.—
His Honour, after referring at length to the evidence in the
cause, which was of a contradictory description, directed that
two issues should be taken to law ; the first to try whether,
before the 17th of Dec., 1842, an agreement for the sale of
the equity of redemption had been entered et
into bween the
parties; and the second, to try whether at the time of exe-
cuting the indenture the plaintiff was aware of the real par•
port or effect of the paper.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittieita at NiA Prim. Before Mr. Justice Erie.
'ftXotei o. DALTON.—TROVEII.—This was an action of
trove?, brought by a servant against her master, for detain-
ing her box of clothes. The servant left without giving no-
tice, and the articles in question being detained by her master,
in two days a writ was served on the defendant, and this
action was brought without any demand having been made,
so as to complete the conversion. The jury somewhat un-
expectedly returned a verdict for the plaintiff, for the value of
the goods, and 251. damages.
The learned judge gave leave to move to enter a nonsuit.

COURT OF REVIEW.
Ex PARTE LAW RE HENNEDY.—VALVATION OF
ANNUITY Fon THE PURPOSE OF SET-OFF.—The assignees
in this case had brought an action against the petitioner for
a debt due to the estate. The petitioner was also an annuity
creditor of the bankrupt, and applied to the commissioner
(Mr. Evans) to have the annuity valued under the 6 George
IV., c. 16, s. iii, for the purpose of its value being set off in
the action. The commissioner held that he had no juris-
diction to value the annuity, unless the petitioner tendered
• proof upon it. The present petition was an appeal from
this decision. Mr. Parsons appeared in suppo rt of the peti-
tion, and Sir F. Simpliinion for the assignees.
The Chief Judge could not say that he should have differed
from the commissioner in the construction of the act. The
cane of a claim of set.off by an annuity creditor had probably
not occurred to the tamers of the act. If the petitioner,
however, submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, the
action of the assignees might be stayed, and the whole matter
decided by the commissiener, which would give the peti-
tioner the -benefit of his act-off. The petitioner agreed to
this course, and au order was made accordingly.
EE PARTE BILYESTER RE DRACON.--OFFICE FEES
OF 101. AND 201.—This was another of the eases which have
come so frequently before the court, as to the right of thl.e
public treasury to have the office fees of 201. and 10
retained where there has not been and is ant likely to be any
choice of assignees ; the act only directing the payment of
those fees upon the choice. In this case the solicitor at the
petitioning creditor was the petitioner, and sought pajneent
of his bill, which would nearly exhaust the fund realised.
The commissioner declined ordering the payment, on the
ground that, AS the fund had been paid over to the Ae-
coiunant-Genersl, he had no jurisdiction.—Mr. Sturgeon
appeared in support of the petition, and the Chief Judge,
after reading the clauses of the act, said that as the majority
of the London commissioners differed from him upon this
point, he had considered the question, but could not come to
any other conclusion than that at which he had arrived in
the former cases. The clauses in question imposed a tax
upon the subject, and before it became payable, the precise
event in which payment WAS directed must be shown to have
happened. As that event bad not occurred, the right of the
petitioner ought not to be delayed, and the order must be,
as in the former cases, for payment of his hat
Ex PARTE PERRT Rs PERRY.—COSTMF BANERUPT
Aft...LYING FOR LEAVE TO SURRENDER.—Mr. Singlake
appearbd in support of this petit:on, which was that of the
bankrupt, who aka to be at liberty to surrender to the fiat,

though the time for surrendering had expired. He had
been on the continent, and had not heard of his bankruptcy
till the time had passed over. He stated in his affidavit that
he left England in consequence of his embarrassments.
The Chief Judge : In what part of the was he,
that he did not see an English newspaper Waste wander-
ing in the desert ?—hir. Kinglake suggested that under the
circumstances the bankrupt would not be likely to resort to
the English newspapers for agreeable information. The
general rule war, that a bankrupt applying to surrender was
allowed his coats.
The Chief Judge said that this must be subject to an ex-
ception in the case where the bankrupt's ignorance of the
proceedings against him proceeded from his leaving England
to avaid payment of his debts, or, as he much mare geneelly
expressed it, " in consequence of his embarrassments."

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS., WESTMINSTER.
Neu Part's—Before the Lord Chief Justice ace.'..,. WI".
WAREHAM o. PILkNCE AND °TREWS. Tun Gass:
WESTERN RAILWAY RoRRERIEs.—This ease was resumed
this morning, and Mr. Serjeant Wilkins rose to address the
jury in reply. The learned counsel made a most eloquent
speech, which occupied the attention of the court for nearly
three hours. He contended that the whole of the plaintiff's
conduct in reference to the transactions in question eras quite
consistent with innocence. In visiting Maynard during hit
confinement in the Compter, he only exhibited an honest
friendship towards a man whom he believed to be worthy of his
regard. lie had followed him in his disgrace when others had
deserted him, but it was not to be insinuated that, because
he went to see him under such circumstance*, he was cog-
nisant of his guilt. The learned counsel also urged that
the trial of the cause had been delayed by the defendants, on
the ground that they might obtain the evidence of Maynard
and Garrett. Maynard was present in court, under the
authority of a warrant from the Secretary of State, but he
was not called. The statement of Garrett had been pro-
duced in evidence, but it did not tend to prove that the
plaintiff Ind a guilty knowledge of the offences committed
by Garrett, nor that he had assisted in enabling him to
escape the hands of justice. lie submitted, however, that,
supposing there was any reasonable and pro
suspecting cause for
anspeeung him, the defendants had established an legal
answer to the action. In the first place there was no
had
evi-
dence, as against the plaintiff, to show that any felony
been committed, much lees to prove that the plaintiff was
cognisant of any felony. The justification pleaded by the
defendants bad not been proved, and he (the learned
counsel) trusted that the jury would, by their verdict, ex-
press their indignation at the manner in which the feelings
of a poor man had been outraged by persons occupying a
higher station in society; and that they would give him
ample compensation for the injury he bad received.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up the case, observed
that the jury had just heard a very eloquent speech, andhad
it
bad often occurred to him (the learned judge) that more
been said to juries in reference to their not relying on the
speeches of counsel than was strictly correct. It was
ic hue
er
duty of counsel to point out to the jury their partula
views in respect of the evidence ; and their observations
were deserving of attention, as far as they enable the t
it
jury to ascertain the true hearing of
th tat thehe e
must not be
viden might
ce; bu
was right he should remind the jury y
guided by any eloquence or wit which might be displayed
by e
nd starred gentlemen on either side. They were to
attend strictly to the facts, and to those facts alone which
bad been proved in evidence. The questions for them to
decide were, whether, upon the pleas which contained
the justification, there was sufficient evidence to show that
the plaintiff had any knowledge of the felonies committed by
1 Maynard and Garrett, and that he had taken measures for
preventing their being brought to justice. The defendant
prance had pleaded the general issue, " Not guilty,"
in addition to the pleas put forth by the other
sisfandanta, and in his (the learned judge's) opinion,
tea evidence produced in contradiction of the statementhat
t
Xi. Prance had assisted in the act complained of, g[
have induced the learned counsel to abstainln r from pefere ress
ncein tog
the case any further against that person.
the other two defendants they would be entitled to a verdict,
if the jury believed, from the evidence, there was reasonable
cause for suspecting the plaintiff. lf, on the contrary, they
should be of opinion that the defendants had no cause what-
ever for taking him into custody, and for locking him up at
the railway station, they damages nd their verdict for the
plaintiff, and estimate the damagaccording to the extent of
injury which they might think he had sustained.
The jury retired, and after an absence of an hour and
i three quarters, returned into court with a verdict for the
1 defeadant, Prance, on the issue of Not Guilty, but in respect
of die charge against Collard and Nash, they found for the
plaintiff; damages, one farthing.—llis lordship refused to
certify. —The speech of the learned counsel in reply, and the
summing up of the learned judge occupied the court from
half-past nine in the morning until nearly three o'cl
O'CONNELL V. O'CONNOR AND ANOTHER.—LISEL.—Mr,
Serjeant Dowling and Mr. Percival Banks for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Seeant Wilkins Wilde for the defendants.
The plaintiff in this case was Mr. Wm. John O'Connell, a
gentleman who (according to the statement of the learned
counsel) had been for many years engaged in this learn
ed
counsel try
as an active supporter of the doctrines of " repeal," is
defendants were Mr. Feargus O'Connor and Mr. Joshua
Robson, the proprietor and publisher of a newspaper called
the Northern Star and Leeds General Advertiser. The
action was brought to recover compensation in damages
for a libel which appeared in that paper on the 3rd Angola,
1844. The defendant, availing himself of Lord
an ap o Campbelogy,
ll's
new act relating to the law of libel, bad pleaded
and had paid 61. into court. The libel in question was as
follows: One of the reuons why the London repealer
object to the payment (which objection has called forth the
conduct complained of) of Wm. John O'Connell is, that he is
compelled to be out of the way all the week, fearing an
arrest, and can only be seen out on Sundays. Ile has been
living with a lady of the name of Moss, who entrusted him
with money to pay bills, to the tune of two or, three hundred
pounds,. and he, instead of paying the bills, having other-
wise employed the cash, she wiskes to arrest him, in the hope
that the Asociation (meaning the Loyal National Repeal
Association of Ireland) will pay the money to save him from
disgrace. All this be publicly acknowledged at the St.
George's Ward."—Mr.Serjeant Wilkins addressed the jury
for the defendant, and contended that the following apology,
which appeared in the Northern Star, on the 31st of Die
same month, in which the libel was published, was amply
sufficient to express the defendant's regret, and to vindicate
the character of Mr. O'Connell :
I hare for some time back noticed a kind of running fire about
your conduct in the Northern Star newspaper. As soon as I saw a very
uncalled for and unpmvoked attack upon you in the columns of that
paper, I made inquiries as to the source from whence these charges came,
and, as I employ ,reporter exclusively for communicating the proc
corre-
eed-
ings at repeal meetings, I resolved on discharging my present
spondent from that office, if he bad commenood its undertaking by
what I consider a very unjustifiable attack upon your private chit-
ratter. I learned, however, that he was in no way ootutected with
the gander in question. I now think it due, to ray coutry, to you,
and to myself, to state, in confirmation of whit I have asserted at a
public meeting, that not only was the report in question inserted
without my knowledge, but that, further, the moment I perused it I
communicated my strong disapprobation of it to the editor. I may
further add, that what IA slanderous and spiteful in the communica-
tion I wholly disbelieve, while what may be true is many agood sasa's
cave. I trust, air, that neither I nor the Northern Star iwil am bs
made the instrument of weakening whatever power you may have to
organise Irish hatred against Dudish oligarchical misrule, while yon
must prepare yourself, w bile engaged in such an undertaking, for the
criticism of friends as well as the unmerited slander of foes. Trust-
ing that this explanation will be the more acceptable for being a
voluntary correction of what I believe to be a gratuitous and un-
merited falsehood, I (Main, J. your obedient servant, nasal:ls
O'CosNori.—Addreased to "W. J. O'Connell, Inspector-Genus' at
Repeal Wards in England."
After reading this apology, the learned counsel for
defence urged that the paper being published in Leeds,
and Mr. O'Connor being a resident in London,
there was some ground for exonerating that gentleman from
all knowledge of the libel previous to its publication. lie
had entrusted the conduct of this journal to persons whom
he believed he could depend upon, and when he found that
his trust had been betrayed, he expressed his strongest dis-
approbation.—A person who had formerly been a reporter
on Mr. O'Connor's paper, was then called to prove that at a
meeting of the Repeal Association in Seymour-street.
Somer's town, he read the apology to Mr. O'Connell, and
he replied that " It was most ample, that it was very gentle-
manly of Mr. O'Connor, and that he knew he would not do
him an injury without a cause." It appeared, on cross-
examination, that the witness who gave this testimony had
been a repeal warden, and that Mr. O'Connell had expressed
an unfavourable feeling towards him.—Mr. Serjeant Dowling
having replied, the learned judge summed up, and the jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 601., including the
6/. paid into court.
---

COURT OF EXCREQIIER.
ties Fan,. Before Sir F. Fetlock, C. 8., and a Common Jury.
CROCIFORD O. LORD DIAIDSTONE.—CLURS.—COMION
GAMINO-HOUSEB.—Mr. Rumfrey, Q.C. (with whom was
Mr. W. C. Rowe), opened this case on behalf of the plain-
tiff, Mrs. Sarah Crockford, executrix of the late William
Crockford, who had been for many years manager of the
well-known club in St. James's-street which bore his name.
The action was brought to recover 20 guineas for the use and
occupation of the club for the year 1840 (being 10 guineas'
subscription, and a similar sum the entrance-fee on election
thereto), and 751. for dinners and wines. The defendant
pleaded, first, payment of 37'. 17s. 6d. into court, in dis-
charge of the last-mentioned demand, and " never indebted"
with respect to the remainder. In addition to those pleas,he
also pleaded "that the said club was a common gaming-
house." If the defendant had not been represented by
counsel, he (Mr. Rumfrey) could not have believed that the
eldest son of the Earl of Winchikea, the head of one of the
richest and mat ancient families in England, could have
condescended to such a defence as that now set up. In 1824
the club, known as Crockford's, was established, under the
srupices of the Dukes of Wellington and Richmond, and
assegai other distinguished members of the aristocracy con-
neeted with the turf and the government. It continued
under the management of the late Mr. William Crockford
until 1811, when a committee of management undertook the
control of it, although it still bore its former name. In
April, 1840, Lord Maidstone was elected a member of the
club; sad the present action was brought, not only for his
subscription and entrance fee for that year, but
also for dinners and wines supplied to himself and
to a lady who lived in Bolton-atreet, under his
Lordship's protection. The most expensive dinners and
wises were supplied to that lady by the defendant's direc-
tions, although not one farthing had ever been paid for
them, until the present action was commenced, and 371. were
paid into court. The late Mr. Crockford died in 1844
nd
,
having ceased, in 1841, to be the manager of the club, a
his executrix, the present plaintiff, did not seek to recover
more than the sum which accrued due, during the year 1840,
while he continued manager. The defendant married a
daughter of a nobleman, who was a member of the very
club which was now described upon the record to be " a
common gaming-house;" but, the demand for which the
action was brought was no gaming debt; it was for wines
and dinners supplied to the defendant himself, and to
others at his instance ; he had associated at that club
with the noblest men in England, and yet he had the mean-

----------
neesto rely upon the paltry deknee that he should he exempt-
ed from the payment of any debts contracted with a person
who kept a gaming-house ; when the ease was reported and
the defendant's highly respectable connexions heard that he
had himself defended upon such grounds as these, no doubt
he would bitterly regret the course he had taken. Without
the fear of contradiction it might be asserted that Crock-
ford's Club was frequented by the noblest and the atest
men in England, yet Lord Maidstone objected, as his defence
to an honest demand, that it was a common gaming-house,
because (to use the words of the plea), " the said William
Crockford had therein caused divers idle and edisposnd
ed
persons to congregate and come to play together at divers a
very many unlawful games for lucre and run." Amongst the
" divers idit and evilAlisposed persons ' were the Dukes of
vrelunoroo,Broaore,
_Argyle, Richmond, Rutland,and Leeds.
The lore Lord wborriddie !he late and the present Dukes
of Cleveland, the Earl of' Westm:reland, LOA Btuart de
Rotheasy, and many others of the higheet ditto.— i.
tae
etery one of them with being
,:nuntry. What would they say to-metnw when they heard
.10.6na___.,,...ae cha:drdpersons
congregated
to
play
at
tth‘ iadtleLnanidMea:idl
divers and very many unlawful games ? (Laughter.)
Mr. Jur.as (with whom was Mr. Jones) for the defenders*
You tete not mentioned them all—you forgot Lord De Roos.
I,:s laugh.)—Mr. Humfrey admitted that that
nlebrated
gentleman bad been a member of the club, but there were
very many others of high distinction whose names he bad
not mentioned—for instance, the Duke of Montrose, the Earl
of Sefton, Colonel Anson, the Duke of Wellington's sons,
the Marquis of Hertford, Lord Chesterfield, and many
others, amongst whom there was not one with whom it
would not be a credit to associate ; yet the present defendant
characterised them all as a set of idle and evil-disposed per-
Creckforld.
sons, and thought himself justified, after obtaining the mat
"whPeienlisiTheewshineeluldfrohniawithout
uthonuott paying
d
his lordship won, he put the money into his pocket end
walked away, but whenever he lost he gave checks which
.t h. e
been
.e late n Mr.
ashamed..
one farthing for them, to set up the present defence, of
that the members of thebutt did play—Lord Maidstone
himself sometimes played,
were always dishonoured.
In support of the case, W. Simmons (hall-porter at the
club) proved the attendance of the defendant there from
time to time during the year 1840, and that he had dined
i there frequently. Hazard and whist were the principal
games, but rouge et noir and roulette were never played
there, The members played during the afternoons, and
generally commenced about two o'clock.
Mr. James (cross-examining): Did you ever hear from the
late Mr. Creator& that Lnrd Maidstone bad lost 60,0001. e
there ?—Witness : No ; nor from any one else ; I don't believ
he ever did; Lord Maidstone was about 25 years of age
when be became a member of the club ; there were several
other members younger than he. Lord Alexander Lennox
and others were much younger. Did not think Lord De Roos
proposed Lord Maidstone, as Lord De Roos was dead in 1840.
—At this stage of the caae the Loyd Chief Baron said it was
too late to proceed further, and it was accordingly adjourned.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.
SPIPENSION OP CEILTIFICATE.—THE DRAPERY TRADE.
—The bankrupt, named Stretton, who carried on the drapery
trade at Camden town, applied for his certificate.—lt
appeared from the balance-sheet, that the deb
rots were
2,8141. 17s. Id., the property given up was 7501., pperty
the hands of creditors, 2831. 14s. 7d. ; the profits were stated
at 3441. 10s. 2d., while the expenses (trade) were 667/. 14s. 3d.,
and the personal were 8111 17s. 10d. ; the losses aho exhibited
a very considerable item (9111. 18e.)—Mr. Cooke opposed the
immediate grant of his certificate to the bankrupt upon the
ground of reckless trading and extravagant expenditure, but
the assignees acquitted him of the frauds which they suspected
when he was last before the court —Mr. Duncan aged
tion
the
youth and inexperience of the bankrupt, as some justifica
for his conduct. Ile took the business without capital, and it
was now admitted upon the part of the assignees that no fraud
attached to his dealing. His utmost offence was " folly,"
and not fraud, and, therefore, he (Mr. Duncan) hoped that
if the certificate was not granted forthwith, the suspension
would be for the shortest possible period consistently with
its sense of justice by the court.
Mr. Commissioner Evans said, I am glad that the charge
of alleged fraud has been abandoned by the assignees as
being unfounded in fact, hut I cannot, by an immediate
grant of the certificate, allow this young man to go out upon
the world, nor until he is afforded time for some further
experience in the management of business. His conduct as
a trader demands censure, and in suspending his certificate
for eighteen months, I am only performing my duty to
debtors, to creditors, and the public. Protection was grantcd
from month to month.

POLICE Y _ESTERDAT.
MANSION-HOUSE.—EXTENSIVE ROBBERY AND SIN-
GULAR Devecrlosx—Hugh Roberts and William 2lfarahall
were placed at the bar, the former charged with having
robbed his employer, Mr. Evans, of No. 131, Cheapside, of
Bandanas and other handkerchiefs to a very considerable
amount, and the latter with having received the goods know-
ing that they sad been stolen.—George Todd, City police-
man 709. stated that on Wednesday evening he took a man
named Upson, whom he found drunk in the street, to the
station-house in Bow-lane, and found the black handker-
chief with white spots produced upon him. Upson was sub-
sequently admitted as evidence against the two prisoners at
the bar. Mr. D. Evans, of No. 131, Cheapsiie, warehouse-
man, stated that the prisoner Roberts was in his service.
On Thursday last Everett, a policeman, called upon him,
and in consequence of a communication which took place
between them he went to speak to Roberts, who was then
in the warehouse. Having shown to Roberts the handker-
chief alluded to, and said that a man was in custodyu about
that
it; that prisoner said, " I may as well confess to yo
I have taken a piece of handkerchiefs. You may pro-
secute me, for lam tired of my life. I have not had
he
a
moment's peace for some years.'
Witness asked him if
was sure that he had not taken anything else, to
which he replied that he had taken nothing else.—
John Upson, of No. 68, Queen-street, Cheapside, stated that
he had been in the warehouse of Messrs. Swan and Pearce,
in St. Paul's Church-yard, as porter, for 13 or 14 years. He
had known Roberts for several fears. The handkerchief
produced had been taken from him by a policeman (here
three other handkerchiefs were produced). Ile bought the
whole of these handkerchiefs from Roberts, abouttwo months
ago, for Is. 9d. each. A shawl handkerchief produced had
been also bought by him from the same person about twelve
months ago.—Everett, policeman, 63, deposed as to the ad-
mission made b 7 Roberts, ad stated thate receiveraftards
went to Messrs. Swan and Pearce's, n here he ed from
Mr. Swaa three haudkerchiefs, which corresponded with
that found upon Upson.—Mr. John Marston, clerk to the
prosecutor, stated that after Roberts was in custody, he e went
to the Bull's Head Inn, Wood-street, where Roberts
and baying heard the name of Marshall, the other prisoner,
mentioned, he went to the house of Mr. Slater, in whose
service Marshall was. He saw Marshall, who, in answer to
questions, said that he knew Hugh Roberts, and had pur-
chased goods of him, for which he had bills of parcels and
receipts. Upon being told toproduce the papers, he said hde
bad not got them. Ile stated that he had purc of
Roberts to the amount of about 100/., in black silk handker-
chiefs and printed Bandana handkerchiefs, and that he
considered it a privilege he had to buy or sell goods.—
In Marshall's lodgings were found some handkerchiefs of
the description sold by Mr. Evans. —Mr. Hobler : Is it not I
usual for persons in the situation of the prisoner Marshall to
buy to sell again I—Witness : I should say not.—Mr.llobler:
Do not other houses permit their servants to do so?—Wit-
ness : Other houses may allow it for what I know, but it is
not to my knowledge by any means the practice.-31r.
Slater, in whose employment Marshall had been for some
time, and who was called to speak to his character, said he
had forbidden him to sell goods on Isis own account, and that
seeing that he appeared to live above his means, he intended
to get rid of him.—Roberts, who was undefended, said he
had nothing to say.--The Lord Mayor said the evidence dis-
closed a system of robbery by servants of a most atrocious
kind. It was evident that the plunder had been going on
for a considerable time, and by a sort of contrivance which
was calculated to enable those engaged to enrich themselves
at the serious expense of their greatest benefactors.—Mr.
Marston stated that considerable deficiencies had occurred
upon taking stock within the last two or three years.—Mr.
Nobler submitted that there was no identity as to the goods,
and that Marshall's conduct had been open and undisguised,
and betrayed no consciousness of guilt.—The Lord Mayor: I
am quite satisfied that the case of Marshall, as well as of
Roberts, must go to a jury, and I commit both prisoners for

trial.
BOW-STREET.—ROBBERY AND DESERTION.—John
Orchard, a drummer in the 2nd battalion of Coldstream
Guards, was brought before Mr. Jardine, charged with hay-
ing, on the 26th of November, stolen a gold watch and chain,
the property of the lion. Charles Grimston from the guard-
room
at Buckingham Palace.—Serjeant Robert Collins said,
the prisoner was in the guardmoom on the 26th, at half-pa't
10 o'clock, when he went to visit the sentries. On his re-
turn the prisoner was absent ; inquiries were made, but he
could not be found; he had, however, told a sentry that he
was going out with a letter for the Captain, which statement,
on the Captain's return, was discovered to be false, and in a few
minutesafter the property was missed.--The prisoner in reply
to the charge, said there was no witness to prove he had
committed a robbery.—The serjeant prayed for a remand, to
enable him to procure the attendance of Captain Oriroston
and other witnesses, which was granted.
ILLICIT DISTILLATION.—JO AD Mason, described as
marble-polisher, was charged with carrying on a private still
at No. 9, Princes-street, Drury lane.—lt appeared from the
evidence of the officer and supervisor, that about 11 o'clock
on Tuesday night, from information received, they went to
the house where the prisoner carries on the business of a to-
bacconist. The prisoner was found down stairs' where there
was a still in full work.—Mr. Jardine fined him 301., and
in default of payment to three months' imprisonment.
WORSHIP-STREET. BRUTAL AsBATLT ON A
WOMAN.—John Phillips Weston, who described himself as
a gentleman, residing at Frimley, in Surrey, was charged
with having committed a violent assault on a respectable
young woman, named Mary M'lntosh, residing with her
married sister. The complainant, a delicate-looking person,
whose eye was much swollen and do. colouresl. stated that
between three and four o'olock that morning she was hasten-
ing to procure the attendance of the family surgeon for her
sister, who had been suddenly taken ill. She had scarcely
gone twenty yards from the door when the defendant, with-
out uttering a word, wised her, and shaking her violently
flung her on the pavement, and kicked her till she was
rendered insensible. On recovering she found the defendant
in the custody of a constable, by whom he waa at once eon-
veyed to the station-house.—Police-constable K, 354, de-
posed to having witnessed the assault.—The defendant, in
answer to the charge, declared that the occurrence originated
in a misapprehension. lie had mistaken the complainant
for a woman who had just before left his company after rob-
bing hi= of his rini end purse, but he was qttitc ready ti
make her any pecuniary recompense the magistrate might