The Express.
London, England, 1866-12-04 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Dgc. 3.

Sittings at Nisi Prins inMiddlesex.—(Before Lord Chief
Justice Bovill and a Common Jury.)
THE SPECIAL JURY SYSTEM.
In the course of the day complaints were made on the
part of several gentlemen as to the inconvenience suffered
in consequence of the mode of summoning special jurors.
Ilia Lordship stated that he had grounds for saying that
some of those who had the privilege of legislating for the
country wculd endeavour to amend the system ; and in-
deed, had he himself remained in parliament, it was his
intention to bring in a bill upon the subject. If the spe-
cial jurors themselves could express the feelings of the
body, no doubt every attention would be paid to what
they said, but probably the adoption in London and Mid-
dlesex of the plan of summoning one single panel of
special jurors, instead of a panel in each came, would re-
move most of the existing inconvenience. This plan was
already in operation at the assizes.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—DEC. 3.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN RE GEORGE FREDERIC DRUCE.
The bankrupt was an attorney, of St. Swithin's-lane.
The case has been before the court 12 months. This was
the adjourned sitting for examination and discharge. The
aggregate liabilities are 35,0201., against which there are
assets returned at 18000/., and property held as security
valued at upwards of 12,0001. The bankrupt had incurred
liabilities on account of the Daveutry Railway Company
and the Marine Estates Company (Limited.)
Mr. Munna, for the assignees, stated that the assets con-
sisted of property at Bembridge and at Brighton, the
deeds of which had not yet been given up to the assignees,
but were held by the Hampshire Banking Company. Other
assets were expected to be realised from the bankrupt's
bills of coats, and the assignees did not oppose the bank-
rupt passing his examination, the order of discharge being
adjourned.
Mr. Graham, the official assignee, stated that only 901.
bad been received by him.
Mr. Reed opposed for Mr. Thorpe, of Leeds, a creditor
for 10,360/., who was dissatisfied with the accounts.
His Honour said it was quite essential that there should
be an inquiry where assets returned at 18,0001. had only
produced 901.
Mr. Munns said that nearly 200/. bad been realised.
Mr. Reed said he challenged the accuracy of the
accounts from beginning to end. The bankrupt was an
attorney, who had speculated in all kinds of companies,
land companies, railway companies, hotel companies, beer
companies, washing companies, and others. He had exe-
cuted a deed which turned out to be waste paper, and he
had then come to this court to protect himself from his
creditors. Bills returned at 2:1,0001. were most of them
accommodation bills, having been given as surety for
Matthew Shield, a railway contractor. Of this amount
11000/. was due to the Agra and Masterman's Bank. The
bankrupt stated that 9,400/. was due to him for costa, but
the items were merely estimated, and were not vouched
by his books. I'art of the amount was claimed in respect
of director's fees of the Norfolk Hotel and Club Company,
the Brighton Laundry Company, and others, the bank-
rupt apparently having obtained the appointment of cer-
tain persons as directors of those companies on condition
of receiving a portion of their fees. He returned some
shares in the Inns of Court Hotel Company (now winding
up), at 800/., and land at Natal, in Africa, " say 1000/."
The accounts now rendered were a delusion and a mockery,
and an adjournment sine die was asked.
Mr. Lawrence, on behalf of the bankrupt, urged that as
the assignees, who represented creditors for 11,000 g., were
satisfied with the accounts, the court ought to pass the
examination. The opposing creditor was a man who had
charged 20 per cent. for his money, and it did not lay in
his mouth to complain of the bankrupt's improvidence.
His Honour said he would take time to look into the
ease, and would give his decision on Monday next.