The Express.
London, England, 1866-11-16 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. —Nov. 15.

Sittings in Banoo.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Barons Bramwell, Channell, and Pigott.)
POWELL V. CHANCE.-SAVAGE V. CHANCE.

These were plaints in the County Court of Birming-
ham to recover in each instance a sum of 41. 541. for
damage sustained by the escape of chloric acid gas from the
chemical works of Messrs. Chance, in a small village near
that town. During the present term a rule had beenobtained
by Mr. Hudaleston, Q.C., on the part of the defendants
for a certiorari to remove the plaints to this court on the
ground that they were cases which involved important
scientific questions as to the apparatus used by the defend-
ants, and the effects of the gas evolved, and could only be
properly tried by a special jury in one of the superior
courts.
Mr. J. Powell, Q.C., now showed cause against the rule
contending that it would be a denial of justice to the
plaintiffs, the humble shopkeepers in the town, if they
were driven into the superior courts to recover these small
sums. It appeared that an action against the defendants in-
volving the same question had been tried at the Gloucester
assizes before Mr. Baron Channell, and that the defendants
had since adopted some improvements in their works with a
view to abate the nuisance. The present plaintiffs alleged
on their affidavits that the nuisance complained of was
owing not so much to any defect in the apparatus of the
defendants as to the negligence of their servants. It
seemed that the defendants had for some years paid

Powell, who kept a draper's shop, and other pal-ties in the
town, small sums of money for injury done to their goods
by the noxious vapours.
Mr. Iluddleston having been beard on the other side,
The Court thought that those cases involving very trifling
claims were peculiarly ones to be tried in the County Court,
and refused to make the rule absolute ; they, however, in-
timated that if. after two or three of the cases had been
tried in the Birmingham County Court the defendants
found it was absolutely necessary for the purposes of
justice to have the questions determined by a superior
court, another application could easily be made to this
court.
Rule discharged.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Nov. 15.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Gottlburn.)

IN RE J. C. GREENHILL.

The bankrupt, a merchant, of Fenchurch-street, recently
applied for his order of discharge from debts of 1E4,2447.,
against which the assets and property held as security
were returned at 7,800/. Ile was opposed by Mr. Bagley
for the assignees, and Mr. Phelps for creditors, and sup-
ported by Mr. Reed.
His Honour now gave judgment. He inquired in the
first instance. how much of the 5,3001. worth of pro-
perty said to be given up tothe assignees had been realized ?
Mr. Bagley said that the item represented the estimated
value of consignments to Tasmania, but that only 451. had
yet been received, and the receipt of anything further
was very doubtful, for the assignees had done all in their
power, but without success, to realise those consignments
which had been made to most uncertain markets.

His Honour said it was a most disgusting result. The
accounts were evidently fallacious and calculated to de-
ceive the creditors; and the case altogether was very dis-
creditable to the bankrupt. He had been confidential
clerk in the house of Messrs. Cockerel! for many years,
and in that capacity had acquired the confidence of many
customers of that house. On the strength of that he
started business on his own account without capital. He
then proceeded to make the most reckless ventures in the
way of consignments to India and elsewhere ; he soon
found himself in difficulties, and proposed a composition,
but was only able to pay the first instalment, and then
wholly broke down. Instead of holding his hand when he
found he could not meet his engagements, he contracted a
debt with Messrs. John Grave and Co., of Manchester, at
a time when he could have had no reasonable prospect of
making payment. The assignees in this case (the Fore-
street 1%, arehousing Company) were bona fide creditors,
but had very good-naturedly withdrawn their opposition,
believing that there was no fraud in the case ; but on the
, ground urged by Dlessrs. Grave who were creditors for
M above :t., the bankrupt was clearly within the statute;
and his order would be suspended for six months, on the
ground of contracting debts without probable means of
payment. Protection would be given for three months.