The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 23.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
IN RE J. W. P. GRAHAM.

The bankrupt, describing himself as an insurance
broker, of King's-road, Chelsea, applied for his certificate.
Mr. Pennell, the official assignee, in his report on the
case stated that the bankrupt commenced his accounts in
1847, when he had no capital. He now owed 4,0921.,
without one penny in the shape of assets. His profits
had been 3,180/. ; trade charges, 1,9731. ; personal ex-
penses, 4,907/. ; law costs, 651. ; losses, 4321. The
bankrupt did not appear to have done any business since
the early part of 1854, but he had been endeavouring to
arrange with his creditors by offering them a trifling
composition, and, having failed in that, he was compelled
to seek the protection of the court. The trade and per-
sonal expenditure had exceeded the profits by 3,7001.
The books had been well kept, and the balance struck at
the end of each year. The annual balance-sheets not
only showed that he had been insolvent since 1849, but
that his deficiency had been always increasing. The ac-
counts now prepared for the court had been compiled
from the books, and were corroborated thereby.
Mr. Chidley, for the bankrupt, said the case was one
in which he could only ask for a common certificate.
His position had been seriously injured by the failure of
the Sunderland Joint Stock Bank in 1851.

His Honour observed that he had begun with nothing,
and had ended 4,000/. worse than nothing. U❑der-
writers and stockbrokers were generally very reckless
in their expenditure, being persons fond of ostenta-
tion and display. They had no stock to give up ; and
it usually happened, as in this case, that they bad col-
lected all the debts that could be got in. Having done
all this, the bankrupt now came and asked for his dis-
charge. He ought rather to have gone to the Insolvent
Debtors' Court. There was no pretence that the failure
had resulted from loss or misfortune. His expenses had
just doubled his profit 3 ; and it was said that he had
been " struggling on." The simple meaning of
that much abused term was, that he went on contracting
debts as long as he could find anybody to trust him.
Had the bankrupt been opposed, his certificate would
have been suspended for a lengthened period. As it was,
having regard to the time he had been before the court,
and the good book-keeping, the certificate must be sus-
pended for six months from the last examination (28th
September lost) ; when granted to be of the lowest class.
In the meantime he would have protection from arrest.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(&fore the Recorder.)
MALL V. WINBURN- COMMITMENT FOR PERJURY.

This was au action to recover the amount of an attor-
ney's bill. In the course of the case defendant was
called and swore positively he never received any bill,
but on this point he was distinctly contradicted.
The jury said they were perfectly satisfied, and the
plaintiff's counsel need not address them, and returned a
verdict for the plaintiff.
His Lordship said that he had not the slightest doubt
that the defendant had committed deliberate perjury,
and he should therefore order him to be detained in cus-
tody. His Lordship observed that the new law gave the
power for either the plaintiff or defendant to be examined
as witnesses in their own cases, and if they ca me for
ward and swore falsely, they must take the consequences

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

(More Mr. Serjeaut Adams, the Assistaut.Judge, a

the Guildhall, Westminster.)

George Gray, 21, and James King, 21, labourers,
pleaded guilty, and James Quin, not guilty, to an in-
dictment, charging them with stealing a live tame g an-
der and two live tame geese, value 205., the property of
Henry Tarton.
The robbery took place at Shepherd's-bush, and it was
proved by the evidence that Gray got over a wall
into the prosecutor's yard, and having picked up the
geese, handed them to some persons outside, a female
servant stating that she distinctly heard more than one
voice on the outside of the gate. The whole of the pri-
soners were afterwards seen together at two public-
houses, and at one which Quin was in the habit of using
after he had done managing the business of his mother,
he went to sleep, being the worse for drink, on a bag
containing one of the geese in question. The police
hearing of the robbery, went and woke him up, and took
from the bag in question a goose, which was quite warm,
and which was distinctly sworn to be the property of the
prosecutor.
_ _

Mr. Itibton, for the prisoner, made a powerful address,
and contended that his client must be acquitted, there
being no count in the indictment for receiving, and the
only offence that he seemed to have committed was,
when in a state of intoxication, to have taken the feathers
of the dead goose to lie upon. He concluded by calling
witnesses for the prisoner, one of whom had known him
as an honest man for ten years, and the other a warrant
officer at llammersmith police court for eight years. The
latter witness said all that he knew against the prisoner
was that he sometimes got drunk, and that he had served
two warrants upon him for bastard children.

The Assistant-Judge having summed up at some
length, left the case to the jury, who, after a few
minutes consideration, found a verdict of Not Guilty.
The Assistant-Judge said Mr. Ribton had a better
knowledge of the jury than he had, and if they had taken
a common sense view of the case, they must have found
the prisoner guilty, for when before the magistrate, the
other prisoners stated that Quin had been with them and
had lent the knife to kill the geese with. The sentence of
the court was that the other prisoners be kept in the
House of Correction fur four calendar months, with hard
labcur.

Mr. Ribton—The verdict proves that an Euglish jury
is the great palladium of British liberty.
The Assistant-Judge—You have done your duty well,
Mr. Ribton. Be content, and do not try to juitify the
verdict.