The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-17 00:00:00

IN RE SALMON AND WALLOCR.

The bankrupts carried on business as boot and shoe
manufacturers in the Hackney road, and this was a meet-
ing for cxaminaticn and discharge. The accounts show
Dr. to Cr. unsecured X 10,70 ; holding security, £53,075;
liabilities, £224. Cr., Property in hands of creditors,
£70,836 ; ditto, given up, £356.
Mr Brou6h, for the assignees, said that the bankrupt
Salmon had di, d since the bankruptcy. The failure was
owing to the bankrupt having made large consignments of
leather to Australia, which had resulted unfavourably.
There was no opposition, and the order of discharge was
granted.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before the Recorder and a Common Jury.)

BONELLL'S ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH. COMPA NY-ATTACII-

111EZTT CASE.

This was an attachment case in which the plaintiff (Borill)
sought to recover £1,376 monies in the hands of the gar:
nishers to the credit of the defendants.
Mr Mathew, for the plaintiff, said that the defendants were
indebted to his clients in and above the sum now sought to be
recovered. As there was no defence to the present proceed-
ings, the only question for the jury was whether a certain
sum of money was in the hands of the garnishers.
Mr Danby said—l was a clerk in the Agra and United
Service Bank, On June 20th Bonelli's Electric Company
had a deposit account at the bank. Tho balance on June
30th was £1,376.

As no one appeared for the defendants his lordship
directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff,
Verdict for the plaintiff.
A LONG CIIASE AFTER A DEETOR.-DIJFFIELD V. ROSE.
This was an action to recover for the hire of a saddle and
bridle some years ago. Mr. Philbriek appeared for the
plaintiff.
Mr Duffield said that some years ago he lent the defendant
a chaise and harness. Defendant pledged them, and wit-
ness travelled nearly 200 miles before he could discover
them. In addition to this defendant hired a saddle and
bridle, for which he was to pay so much per week. Wit-
ness lost sight of the defendant for a long time, but a short
time since he saw the name of Rose up over a door in
Brixton, and found his debtor.

No one appearing for the defendant, his lordship said that
£3l 48 seemed a large sum for the hire of a saddle and
bridle, but as defendant had never put an end to the hiring,
plaintiff Was entitled to a verdict.
Ihe jury found for the plaintiff for the amount sought to
be recovered.

His Lcr&hip—lf you get your money as well as your
verdict, you will be well remunerated, Mr Duffield.
Plaintiff—l do not expect to get one farthing.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr Commissioner Kerr.)

A NAUE OVER A DOOR--IMPORTANT POINT OF LAW-,
MATTHR'YS V. COX.

This was an action to recover £l4 9s for goods sold and
delivered, Mr Maley F. Wood appearing for the plaintiff,
Mr Buchanan representing defendant.
It appeared that defendant supplied a quantity of goods
to a shop in Monkwell-street, City, and the name of the
defendant, Samuel Cox, was over the door. Some of the
orders for goods were signed S. Cox.
Mr Buchanan asked the plaintiff if he had ever seen the
defendant when he took tho orders P

Mr Wood called a witness to prove that the name of Cox
was painted up over the door.
His Honour—No doubt the name was over the door,
nendtdiffhid,o replied that ho
but that is not enough. Putting a name over a door will
not make a man responsible.
enot Case, I e
submit
it. I
Mr Wood—l have a witness here who called for the
money.
A witness stepped forward and
tshaeidd—:flencdaalnletd. on the de-
dsoaoidpr,laahi
ft eo nl
told
hima t for
his the
namem
had put it there because the person to whom the business
belonged owed him (Cox) £2OO, and he was afraid some
sewing-machines would be taken.
ownaesy overa nd
thehe
thaMtrthßeruechisimnaone—vildfentoheata,:htalsa:

His Honour—Certainly not.
Mr Wood—Then I will take a nonsuit.
His Honour nonsuited the plaintiff, giving defendant
full casts.