The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 31, 1864.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

:Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock, and Barons Channel'

and Martin.)
RE DOMINGO CAP. DE VIELLE.

The Inland Revenue, in this case, claimed probate and
egacy duty upon the property of the deceased, which was
refused by the representatives of M. de Vielle, on the
ground that ho was a French subject, and that he
had never given up his domicile in France. The
question, therefore, for the Court to decide was whether
the deceased had given up his domicile in that country,
and had become domiciled in England, whereby his property
would become subject to the payment of the duty.
The deceased was born in Montroi, in the Ban Pyrenees.
In 1808 he went to Spain and entered a mercantile house
at Cadiz. At the breaking out of the Revolution he amongst
other Frenchmen were taken prisoner, and put on board a
hulk at Cadiz, which was alter driven by a gale to the
other side of the harbour, Port St. Mary, where
a part of the French army was stationed, and, of course,
the French subjects were liberated. The deceased then
returned to France, but afterwards on the return of the
Bourbons he gave up his employment there and entered an
English house of business at Gibraltar. After some years
residence there he came to England and established himself
in business at Manchester as agent to a firm abroad. Since
1820 the testator had resided entirely in this country, with
the exception of two visits to France, one in 1846 and the
other in 1853, on which occasion he purchased some pro-
perty in Montroi. Atter his return from Paris on the last
occasion he entirely took up his residence in this country,
where he remained until his death.
Mr. .Bovill, for the representatives, contended that the
deceased never intended to give up his French domicile, and
that he was whilst living essentially a French subject,
possessing, as he did, the right to vote for members of
the Corps Legislatif. M. de Vielle had never abandoned
his French domicile, and his property was not liable to
the legacy and su cession duty.
The Attorney-General, on the part of the Crown, argued
that the whole of the actions of the deceased showed
that he had given up his French nationality, and that
all his subsequent acts showed that his intention was to
make England his domicile.
The arguments were not concluded when we went to
CO& press.

COURT OF PROBATE,
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

MACDONALD V. MACDONALD.

This was an application on the part of the children of
Capt. Macdonald, who was killed in India on the breaking
out of the mutiny at Meerut, on the 10th of May, 1857.
The wife by a will was made sole executrix, but she died
about the same time; but whether she escaped and after-
wards shared the fate of ner unfoitunate.husband could not
be discovered. The principal question raised was whether
in fact the husband was killed before the wife.

The court taking into consideration the circumstances of
the case, and being guided by the decision of his pre-
decessor, decided in favour of granting letters of adminis-
tration to the applicant as next of kin to the dceased.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(l3efore Mr. Registrar Murray.)
IN RE RANDALL,

This bankrupt was a grocer at Norwich, and this was a
meeting for choice of assigness.
Mr. Bugg, of Norwich, appear3d for creditors, and COM.
plained that the property had been taken possession of
under an order of this court and sold by Messrs. Cuttan and
Davis at a great loss.
Mr. Lawrence felt assured that the order for sale had
been obtained by some kind of misrepresentation, or the
court would not havo made the order had the facts been
truly stated ; but all that could be done at present was to
rescind the order and put the property under the control of
the assignees. He strongly reprobated the system which
bad sprung up since the passing of the last act of selling the
property immediately at any sacrifice.
Mr. Bugg spoke to the same effect. In this case 'Messrs.
Cuttan and Davis went down immediately after and pro-
ceeded to sell off, and some portion had been sold to a man
in the bankrupt's employ at 18s. a-week, and he no doubt
bought it with money from the bankrupt's business, who
thus bought his own goods. He considered it a very gross
case, for there was not a pretence or excuse for such
precipitancy.
The Registrar said it was a rule in this court not to grant
an order for sale, except upon evidence of there being an
absolute necessity—as that the articles were of a perishable
nature.
Mr. Bugg said there was not the slightest necessity in
this case, for the property on the whole was not perishable.
A creditor said that he had sold £6O worth of stock to
the bankrupt, which would have kept six months and
longer. He considered the sale a fraud on the creditors,
whoever got the benefit.
Mr Cameron, the official assignee, said that he was not
fully aware of the facts on the grounds on which the order
was issued, as he was ill at the time. He asked what was
supposed to be the loss.
Mr Bugg said he could not say, but he would have the
inventory sent down and every item priced ; but the loss
was not all, it was the gross injustice done under the colour
of the order of the Court.

Mr. Lawrance, who was interested in a similar case, said
the short way would be to bring an action in truver against
Messrs. Cuttan and Davis, and leave them to plead the
order of the Court.

Mr. Bugg said he entirely exonerated the official assignee
from any participation in what was a gross fraud.
Mr. Cameron said he had employed Davis and Cuttan in
the usual way, as he did not know who else to employ,
The choice of assignees took place, and Mr, Bugg carried
the choice.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

CURIOUS DOG CASE.—A SUSPICIOUS AFFAlR.—William
Mitchell, of 44, Noble-street, St. Luke's, described as a
bookbinder, was charged before Mr. Knox with having a
stolen dLg in his possession.
James Carter, a young roan, living in St. George's-
terrace, Agar-town, said—Yesterday afternoon I saw the
prisoner who was drunk, leading a dog with a leash. I
told him that he had stolen property in his possession,
recognizing the dog as belonging to a friend. The prisoner
said " Oh, go to —," I then gave the prisoner into custody,
and he was taken to Bovr• street police-station, where he at
first said that he had had the dog five years, and afterwards
that he had it that morning from a friend to whom it be-
longed, to giti it a run.

. _
[A large oil-painting of the dog—a bull terrier —was here
shown to the magistrate, as also was the dog itself.]

Mr Marriott, of Salisbury-crescent, Agar-town, an
engine-driver, said-- On the 19th of January the dog was
stolen from me near King's-cross. It is of the value of
£5, and I had handbills printed offering 10s. reward for it.
M'Glorin, 50 F—The prisoner, who had been drinking,
first said the dog belonged to himself, and afterwards that
it belonged to Mr. Fishwick, a beershop keeper, in St.
Luke's. On going to Mr. Fishwick that person told me
that he had purchased the dog of a boy three months ago.
Prisoner—l am in the habit of using Mr Fishwick's, and
yesterday offered to take the dog out for a run.
Joseph Fishwick, the keeper of a beershop, in Central-
street, St. Luke's—l have had the dog eight or nine weeks.
I bought it of a stranger, and gave a sovereign for it. I
do not really know who I bought it of, and that's the
truth,

Mr Knox—lt is a regular dog stealing story.
Fishwick—l am willing to give up the dog and pay
expenses.
Mr Knox—You ought to be standing where the prisoner
is, in fact, instead of the prisoner. As far as the dog is
concerned there can be no doubt it is a stolen dog, and Mr
Fishwick I am not at all satisfied with your conduct.
Fishwick—l have told the truth.

Mr Knox—About half of it. The dog must be given up
to the owner, and the prisoner discharged. Get about your
how you meddle with
dogs( to ll snh this
skd) business, i
stri
district.
haveand
face once before.
The prisoner was then discharged, and the dog handed
over to the owner.

THAMES.
A CIVIL ENGINEER AND HIS TASTING-ORDER.—Dir.
Edward Norris, a well-dressed man, was brought before
Mr. Paget, charged with being disorderly and incapable of
taking care of himself, in Great Prescott-street, White-
chapel.
Mr. Paget—ls this the prisoner who was reported to me
too drunk to appear yesterday afternoon.
Blown, a police constable, 181 H.—Yes, sir: The pri-
soner had been to the docks with a tasting-order yesterday,
which he converted into a drinking-older, and drank too
much wine. He was very much inebriated, noisy, and
quarrelsome, and so very disorderly.
Mr. Paget—What are you, Mr. Nurris ?
The prisoner—A civil engineer.
Mr. Paget—Then you can pay ss. for being drunk and
disorderly ?
The prisoner—Certainly, sir.
APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTION ORDER,—Mrs Mary
Ann Rhodes, a lady about 40 years of age, of No. 41, Alma-
road, Bow Common, applied to Mr Paget for an order to
protect her money, goods, and chattels, which she had ac-
quired sinc3 her husband deserted in or about July, 1862.
Mr Paget—Did you give him any cause for his desertion
of you.
Applicant—None whatever, sir.
Mr Paget—Have you been faithful to him ?
Applicant—l have, sir.
Mr Paget—Have you heard from him since ho left you?
Applicant—l have not, and don't know where he is.
Mr Paget—And you have acquired property by y our
own industry.
Applicant—Yes, sir.
Mr Paget—l will grant an order for your protection.
ALLEGED COMPROMISE OF A FELoxY.--William 6mith,
aged 33 years, a beer seller and proprietor of an ale and beer
shop, 64, Back-church-lane, St. George-in the-East, was
brought before Mr. Paget charged with being concerned in
stealing four £5 Bank of England notes from Lawrence
Gundil, a seaman.
The prosecutor, who signed the charge sheet, was paid
off on the 21st of the present, and was immediately after-
wards robbed on Tower-hill of four notes for £5. Infor-
mation was given to the police, ono of the notes was paid
into the Bank of England, and was traced back to the pri-
soner, who gave no satisfactory account of the way he be-
came possessed of it, and he was taken into custody.
Mr. Charles Young, solicitor, said he was engaged to
defend the prisoner.
The prosecutor was called and did not appear.
Inspector Denby said the prosecutor had been paid money
not to appear. de understood £2O had been paid to the
sailor. Tie will not be here.
Mr. Paget—Then the prisoner must be discharged.

LITERATURE.

Second to None ; a Military Romance. By James
Grant, author of " The Romance of War," Sze.
3 volt,. Routledge, Warne, and Routledge.
" Second to None!" such is the proud motto of
the regiment in which Basil Gauntlett, the hero of
Mr. Grant's new chapter of the romance of war,
casts his fortunes, and with which his history be-
comes identified. Here is a sketch of his first
glimpse of his regiment