The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-21 00:00:00

LAW INTLLLIGNINCK.

(TH DAY.)

COURT OF Qt. E EN'S BENCH.
After Term Niati Po at Wettataintter.—(Before
the Lord Chact Just it anal a Special Jury.)
1.14MC1 r. NALL.

This was an action no to • obstruction of light.
Mr. Serjeant Hayes :mil Mr. White were counsel for the
plaintiff. • Cuili ieners, Q.C., and Mr. rearve were
counsel ler the defefolant.
The plaintiff is a piwubroker, currying on business in
Lis•ain.grove. and lie hroiight this action against his neigh-
Is•ur for has Mg erected a wall so near and so high as to
exclude the loom tie back part of the plain-
tiff's shop. In the worse of the inquiry it was
stated that the handier a pledges reoeived annually
at the shop averaged over ',akin*, and the redemp-
tion money to near 7 klinn. The greater proper-
tam ph Igo W:1.1 :idlers of wearing apparel—inostiy
no ti's cl the., which avers 4,1 over a week. In the
majority of eases co, article. were redeemed at the end of
thi• wren and pledged again in the early part of the ensuing
week. It was stated that .Isiylight was most essential for
usainining old clothes, or otherwise pain brokers were
iy to lw defrauded by "duffers," who made pledging
theii tasito.sl, and woo toed "black reviver" to a con-
r•blerible extent. Ouse of the learned counsel observed
that it was well known that a gentleman could
go to a dinner party in the winter with a coat
that would pass as a very good one, but which
he would be ashamed to wear in the summer
semen when he dressed by daylight. A used up clerical
salt, with the light mowing through stained glass windows
and assisted by candies, passed very well, but the wearer
would be ashamed of it in the light. It was also stated
that pawnbrokers whose shops hail not a sufficiency of
light were subject to imposition by the pledging of spu-
rious articles, the object being to get full value of the
goofs and leave them on the hands of the pawnbroker.
(The case was proceeding when our report left.]
- -
COURT OF DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CA l'sES.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
ii.o,ta to %1.. V. ROSENTHAL.

This part•heard cs.e, ;hiChliZialresuTy been reported,
was completed this morning, and the judge made a decree

litnßr.oN r. SODsoN.

Dr. Spinks, Q.O , .ind Mr. Inderwick for the petitioner,
the wife of a brew,r's aiwistasit, at Blyth, Northumber-
land. She chargvd her hushand with having, immediately
after her marriage in last, treated her with the utmost
brutality, and with having also been grylty of great pro-
tligacy.
Decree nisi, with costa.
MARSHALL r. ARNIALL.
_ .

Dr. Spinks, and Mr. Inderwick for the petitioner.
she was the daughter of Mr. Drake, • wine-merchant, at
Islington, in July, and when she was married the
respondent professed to be • box-manufacturer, with an
income of at least :kill. • year. This statement
turned out fake for the respondent proved to
be insolvent. Re occupied 'apartments with his
wife in London, hut she had frequently to go home
to her friends. During the cohabitation he syste-
matically treated her with great harshness and neglect,
remarking tlx.it in a general way it was easier to break a
wife's heart than to cut her throat ; but complaining that
the petitioner was to too;h. Under them circumstances
be resorted to personal violence, which the petitioner
detailed. _ _ _

Proof of adultery having also been given,
The court wade a decree nisi, with costs.

COURT OF It N KRUPTCY.
(Before Kr. Commissioner Goalburs.)
IN ME o;. r. IIMITK

The bankrupt was a solicitor, of Wt.Swithin's-lane, who
bad been largely engaged in promoting public companies.
The case has been frequently before the court, and the
figures have been published at length. The aggregate lia-
bilities are 3.5,900 if., but the figures on the other side of
the account are of larger amount. representing claims on
various companies, many of them doubtful.
Mr. Graham, the official assignee, suited, in answer to
the court, that there had been 12 adjournments in this

Mr. Munna, for the assignee. offered no opposition to
the bankrupt having his order of discharge. It had been
objected, on a former occasion, that Mr. Muddelle, the
assignee, was himself a bankrupt in Mr. Commissioner
Holroyd's court, but it should be stated that he had now
obtained his order of discharge.
Mr. Reed opposed for Mr. Thorp, of Leeds, a creditor
for upwards of 10,0001.
The bankrupt, examined, stated that Mr. Thorp's
debt hail been contracted in connexion with
Kr. Shield, a railway contractor, who received
the money. He was also liable for 10,0001. to
the Agra and Masterman's Bank on the same account.
He had been connected, either .8 promoter or shareholder,
with the Bedford Hotel Company and Brighton Laundry
Company, the Brighton Hotel and Club Company, the
Public Works Credit Company, the English and Irish
Asamistion, the Inns of Court Hotel Company, the
Metropolitan lee Company, the Marine Estates Company,
the Leamington Railway Company, and several others.
He believed Shield to be a substantial man when he in-
curved these liabilities for him. Shield had been bankrupt
three timed. He bad had a house in London, and one at
Brighton, paying :COL rent. Had kept two horses in
London.

Mr. Reed urged that the case came within three of the
elanses of the act—those against exceeeire expenditure,
rub speculation, and contracting debts without probable
means of payment. Though the bankrupt showed a sur-
plus on lus balance-sheet of 10,0001., all that had been
realised wu about 2001.

Mr. Lawrence, for the bankrupt, stated that he bad
been upwards of two years in the bands of his creditors,
he having executed a deed of arrangement in January,
1865, and the bankruptcy having occurred in December,
1865. The bankrupt had been bitten by the unhappy
mania of railway speculation At • time when the whole
world was road on the subject. He had lost his profes.
sional status, and that was a greater punishment than any
that could be inflicted by the court.
His Honour said the case was peculiarly circumstanced.
There had been twelve adjournments ; the assignee, a
large creditor, offered no opposition ; and the only oppo-
sition was by an individual creditor, whose debt was to
some extent secured. Looking at the length of time that
the case had been before the court, the question was whether
the bankrupt had not suffered enough already. The court
had embarked in the case with no very favourable feeling
towards the bankrupt ; it had a very great aversion toper-
sons in the position of solicitors, who ought to advise
others, theimelves rushing into a load of liabilities in con-
nection with joint-stock companies; but the time had ar-
rived when this man ought to have his quietus. His
conduct was certainly open to grave reprehension;
he had no doubt contracted debts without pro-
bable means of payment, and bad indulged in
malt and hazardous speculation. It was evident that
the creditors had reviewed the case favourably from the
fact of their having concurred in • deed of arrangement,
and now, out of a multitude of creditors, only
one appeared to oppose, and he had shown great
malignity in his opposition throughout. The court
would not lend itself to such a feeling. To mark
its sense of the conduct of the bankrupt, the
court would order a short suspension of the discharge,
dating it front January, 1865, and making the suspen-
sion two years and nine months from that period ; this
would give the bankrupt his order in October next.
Br. Reed asked for the costs of his opposition, but his
honour refused to allow them.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN Rs THOMAS FITZMAUNCE BURR&
The bankrupt, described as of Clarendon-place, Maids-
bill, of no business or occupation, applied for his release
from custody. He stated that his debts are about 1000/.
He bad an intere.t under the will of his father, General
Burke, but that interest was forfeited by bankruptcy. He
had an allowance of 500/. or 6001. a year under his father's
will, but it was discontinued when he went to rison.
His Honour said he could only grant the dischargeon the
bankrupt finding sureties in mt.