The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-06 00:00:00

CARD CASE.

Mr. Metcalfe, on the part of the prosecution, applied
for a procedendo to send this case case back to be tried
at the Central Criminal Court. It was an indictment
for a conspiracy, and Probert, one of the defendants,
had made an application to Mr. Justice Crompton, at
Chambers, for a certiorari to remove the care into this
court, which. had been granted. It was now said that
Mr. Probort's affidavit was insufficient, inecmuch as it
only stated as a ground for the certiorari that the appli-
cant wished to have the indictment tried by a special
jury, without alleging that sach a course was requisite,
or that difficult questions of law were likely to arise.
The applicant stated, as a further ground, that being a
clergyman it would be prejudicial to his character to
stand at the bar of the Old Bailey. None of these
grounds, the learned counsel submitted, were sufficient,
and therefore the indictment ought to be sent back to
the Central Criminal Court.

Mr. Justice Crompton would grant the application, as
he now doubted whether he ought to have given the
certiorari in the first instance. When cause was shown,
the learned counsel must not hesitate to put it on that
ground.
Rule granted.:

COMMON PLEAS.—Nov. 5.
DUNCAN V. TINDAL.

Mr. Serjeant Shee said that this case was tried before
the Chief Justice at Guildford, when the verdict was for
the plaintiff for 3001., but he now moved to enter the
verdict for the defendant, or fur a nonsuit, pursuant to
leave granted by his lordship. It appeared that the de-
fendant entered into a verbal agreement with the
plaintiff to purchase his ship, the Minoi, for 2,7001., and
the present action was brought to recover damages, in
consequence of this agreement not having been fulfilled.
The Act, the 8 & 9 Vic., cap. 89, sec. 34, however, enac:s
that no property in any ship shall be sold except by a
a bill of sale, or other instrument in writing; but as in
the present instance there was no writing at all, it was
contended that the whole transaction was void, and there
ought to be a nonsuit.
The Chief Justice said it was a very important point,
and ought to be considered.
Hale granted.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Nov. 5.
(Before Mr Commissioner Foie.) §
IN RE C. J. ASHTON.
This was the choice of asssignees in the case of C. J.
Ashton, merchant, of Fenaburch•street. From a pre-
liminary statement of accounts, prepared by Mr. Butler,
of Basinghall•street, the bankrupt's debts and liabilities
are estimated at about 6,0001, with assets of 1,2001. Mr.
Proctor was unanimously chosen trade assignee.
IN RE DAIIPTAIN.
J. B. Dauptain, coloer-znt-iticacturer, of Wharf-road,
City-road, applied for his certificate. He owed to cre-
ditors 3,044/. ;to the firm of Dauptain, Gorton, and Co.
(of which he had been a member) 3,450/. The assets
were put down at 7631; plant, on which Dauptain, Gor-
ton, and Co., claimed a hen, 3,2381.
Mr. Duncan supported.
Mr. Dupree opposed for the assignees, charging the
bankrupt with concealing from his former partners the
state of his affairs.
His Honour did not think it a case where any suspen-
sion was called for, and granted a certificate of the
second class.