The Express.
London, England, 1868-01-28 00:00:00

TA &W INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

84. I nit
ro
8. In
pcw. ru

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,
Sittings is Banoo.--(Before the Lord Chief Baron, and
Baran Marft and Channell.)
PLATT AND °THERA V. HIGGINS AND °THUM
The court delivered judgment in this awe, which Itu
bean repeatedly before the public. It wee an action for
the infringement of &patent for certain improreinentorr,
the machinery used in carding wool, and at the trial before
Mr. Baron Martin, in Middle's:, the jury found a verdict
for the plaintiffs. Subsequently • rule was obtained for .
new trial, and it was argued at considerable length oil both
sides. Their lordships were of opinion that no good
grounds had been shown for • new trial, and diseharg.,l
the rule.
Sittings at Nisi
and Prium.
Common re sees ries.) Mr. Baron Bramwe:l
J

CHALLIM C. woornx.
This was an action for slander. The defendant pleaded
not guilty.
Mr. J. Brown, Q.C., and Mr. Phi'brick were counsel f,
intiff ; Mr.
the pla Pearce cowasel for the defendant.
The plaintiff, Samuel Challis, entered the service of the
defendant, who kept Woodin's Shades, Bishopsgate, with
• salary, if he gave satisfaction, of 301. a year, with boar,'
and lodging. After a few weeb the defendant ga,
him notice to leave, and when be had get
a railway porter called upon the defendant
the plaintiff's character. On that occasion it-
defendant was said to have used language to
effect, " I will not give him a character ; he is a -__
scamp, a vagabond, and villain, and the biggest thief that
ever stood behind a bar." The defendant added acconlag
to the testimony of the same witness that his barmaid 1,,.;
seen him take some silver out of the till one morning. 1,.
consequence of this slander the plaintiff said he had 6,1.
prevented getting another situation.
The defendant, on being called, swore positively that le
made no such statements. He said that he became (It.
satisfied with the plaintiff as he broke gleam and d,
stroyed measures, and did not seem to have been used to
his particular kind of business. They bad no quan.l
either before or at the time of his leaving. What be said
to the railway. porter was this, that he could not give
plaintiff a cnaracter as he was so careless in his doing',
and that his barmaid had said that on two occasions .i.e
had missed money from behind the counter in the more.
) •ng. The railway porter observed, " Then I suppose yn •
a4l him a thief," and he replied that be could u.r.-;
say he was a careless fellow.
Upon this evidence the jury found a verdict for clan
defendant.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holipid.)
IN RE RANEE'. HENRY 1101140 N.
The bankrupt was a commission agent, of Cluirchmar.
sage, Greshamstreet, and formerly a warehouseman,:
Nottingham. The debts are ; property held 4
security. 500/.
Mr. Aldridge stated that the whole of the debts,
upwards of 10,000/., were due in connexion with other
i people. His goods had been taken by his mother-in-law,
under a bill of sale, which was enforced live days befor,
the bankruptcy. She was returned as a creditor for :Uu.
The bankrupt stated that his liabilities had been it-
cured on behalf of his father and brother. On his goio;
into partnership with them the bank required him to ivit
his name to certain ills, which represented the LAMM.
of the firm. The bank knew his position.
An adjournment was ordered for further accounts.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN RE LEW'S BALFOUR,JUN.
The bankrupt, described as of Spring-grove, Ho \ ton, or,t
of business, was formerly a member of the firm of 1;alfou
and Co., of ltlission•row. Calcutta, inerchants ;ul.l
agents—the other members of the firm being Loris ILiifo,,r,
ten., and James Hamilton Robinson. lie came to
the court on hie own petition on the 'Nth October.
ascribing his failure to general depreciation in the value ui
produoe, and to the failure of Small and Co., of Le
of -bi(-sn.
hall-street, who were the London correspondents e
firm of Balfour and Co., in Calcutta. The bankrupt stat,
that he came to this country owing to ill health, and win!.
here the failure of Messrs. Small and Co. occurred, which
led to the failure of his firm at Calcutta.
This was the sitting for examination and discharge. Ti..
figures in the balance sheet are something enorm Ti,
aggregate liabilities are stated at 392,631/., of which al.tr
180,000/. is due to the firm of Small and Co., the London
agents of Balfour, and Co. The Chartered Sank of
India, Australia, and China, are creditors for 20.u1.u1.;
and the Agra and Muterman's Bank, for 12,1...4.
The
ditto, re are returned at 1t1:,,7:'17.;
ful ditto, 6,61(J1.; bad, 4,:1211.; property xurren.
dered, 59,324/4 and other property the value of
which is uncertain—leaving a deficiency of 123,61?). of
course those figures represent the liabilities and amt. of
the firm ; in fact the bankrupt appears to have o sep.mite
debts.
Mr. Aldridge, who appeared for the official assignee (no
trade assignee having been appointed), stated the circii,
stances of the failure, and said he understood that the
members of the firm in India had obtained their di.
chges. He wished for time to communicate with In
to ar
ascertain what had been done. There was not dia
a
farthing of assets in this country.
The bankrupt stated that be left India in December,
18116.
Mr. Bruty, who appeared for him, stated that but far
his being obliged to come to this country he would have
obtained his order along with his other partners. His
creditors were the creditors of the firs,, and the (state
was being administered by tho provisional assignee of the
Insolvent Court in Calcutta. The assets were very lame,
but the precise amount was not known. Problbly Mr.
Aldridge
in might obtain all the information be wanted fowl
the court India without taking an adjournment of this

case.
The bankrupt, who has quite a youthful appearance,
said that he had been in the firm since May, Itou
o back
the state of his health he had been advised not to g
to India.
Mr. Witty, in answer to the court, said that the hank.
rupt's balance-sheet was merely a copy of the schedule
the firm in Calcutta.
The bankrupt, further examined, said that his draw
14
nr.l
from the firm had been about 1,20 Y. or 1,300/. in
months. He was now living on his friends. He had is
property of any kind, either actual or in expectation.
His Honour said the best course would he to take a
short adjournment in order that the creditors in India
might be communicated with either by letter or advertise-
ment in the same way as if the insolvency had taken pl.,ce
there, evidence of such notice to be given at the neat
sitting here.
Mr. Bruty remarked that a great expense would le
incurred by those notices ; and
His Honour ultimately said that be would tensile':
whether they were necessary.
An adjournment for three months was ordered.
IN RE R. J. DOVER.
The bankrupt was a builder end contractor, of l'prer
Norwood. Debts, 3,2711. ; assets stated at upwanis of
3,000/.
Mr. Manna, for the assignees, stated that the above re.
turn of assets was wholly fallacious ; it was not likely
that
more than 20W. or 300/. would ever be realised. Tile
bankrupt's amounts uired ame
pt had ndment. This had been
pointed out ; but the neglected to make
the amendments. An adjournment sine die was asked.
The bankrupt said there was a debt of 1,200/., which be
knew to be good.
His Honour di eat sine die, with
directed an adjourn
limited protection.