The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 14.
(Sittings in Banco.)
ROTHSCHILD V. THE ROYAL MAIL STEAM ,PACKET

COMPANY.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL moved for a rule in this
case, pursuant to leave reserved at the trial, to enter
the verdict for the plaintiff.
The CHIEF BARON said he remembered well that the
points reserved were of great importance—of such
importance that be directed that they should be argued
before this Court, and that the judgment of the Court
should be considered as his ruling at Nisi Prius, so
that it should be open to either side to take the case
to a court of error by a bill of exceptions. The rule
should, therefore, be granted.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would merely state so
much of the facts of the case as would enable the
other members of the court to see the grounds of his
motion. The action was brought against the defen-
dants as carriers to recover the value of a box of
golddust, which was delivered to the defendants for
conveyance to the Bank of England on account of
the plaintiff. It appeared that 11 boxes of golddust
were delivered at Chagres by the agent of the plaintiff
to the agent of the defendants, and the practice was for
the defendants to take charge of goods of this descrip-
tion at Panama, on the western coast of the Isthmus,
they undertaking the conveyance the whole distance
from Panama to the Bank of England, and taking on
themselves the whole risk of the carriage by land and
sea, with the exception only of loss by " the Queen's
enemies, pirates, robbers, fire, accidents from machi-
nery, boilers, and steam, dangers of the seas, roads,
and rivers, of whatever nature or kind soever." The
pleas of the defendants alleged that they were pre-
vented from delivering the gold by the act of robbers,
and also by the dangers of the roads. The mode in
which the loss arose was this :-11 boxes of golddust,
belonging to the plaintiff, formed part of a cargo of
280 boxes of golddust put on board at Chagres. The
whole cargo was safely landed at Southampton. The
course of dealing between the railway company and
the mail-packet company was this—the railway com-
pany furnished the defendants with trucks for the
purpose of conveying the gold to London, and the
latter packed the waggons and sent them to London
under the custody and care of their own servants.
These 11 boxes formed part of a load of 46 boxes of
gold tor conveyance to London. On the arrival of
the train at London it was discovered that three boxes
were missing, one of which belonged to the plaintiff,
and was the subject of the action. The two others
belonged to other persons. There was no doubt
that the three boxes were abstracted by theft,
It appeared that on the night when the loss occurred
the train stopped ten minutes at the Winchester sta-
tion, and shortly after it bad left a man was seen
coming from the station with two bags evidently con-
taining something heavy—in all probability the stolen
boxes, as they were about the size of ladies' small
workboxes, and were, of course, very heavy, and on
the next day a boy going along a garden near the
station found a box hidden under a bush, which
turned out to be a box of golddust, and a man was
soon afterwards found looking about the bushes appa-
rently in search of something hidden. He was
arrested, and afterwards convicted of receiving. He
had been probably sent there by the thief for the pur-
pose of finding the box which he had hidden. It also
turned out that the waggons in which they then sent
those boxes were waggons in which a man might
easily hide himself, and into or out of which he might
easily climb, and that the servants of the company,
instead of riding in those waggons, rode in first-class
carriages, and on this occasion amused themselves on
the platform while the train waited at the station. On
these facts it was obvious that the boxes were stolen
at that station, and the jury found that the defendants
had not exhibited due care and caution, and were
guilty of negligence. There were three questions for
the Court. First, whether this came within the ex-
ception by robbery,—
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—You say stealing by secrecy
is not robbery ? They must make out that they were
overwhelmed by force.

The cHIEF BARON—On that you are clearly enti-
tled to a rule.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL—The second question is,
whether it came within the exception of " dangers of
the roads."

Mr. Baron ALDERSON—This is not a danger of the
roads. The very collocation of the words, " dangers
of the seas, roads, and rivers," shows that the clam of
dangers meant were of the same kind. If the road along
which these boxes had been brought ran by the side
of a precipice, and the box fell down the precipice
by an accident caused by the state of the road and
was destroyed, that would be a danger of the roads.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The third question is,
whether, supposing the Court should be against me
on the two preceding questions, the exceptions will
protect the carriers against a loss which arose not ex-
clusively from the excepted contingency, but partly
also from their own negligence.—Rule granted.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Jan. 14.
(Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.)
THE EUROPA.—DAMAG E.

It will be in the recollection of our that in
1849 the Europa steamer came into collision with
the barque Charles Bartlett, in consequence of
which the latter vessel sank, and a large number of
lives were lost. Proceedings were instituted against
the Europa in this court, and at the hearing she
was condemned in the damage. Against that de-
cision an appeal was prosecuted to the Judicial
Committee, who affirmed the judgment of the Court
below.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE now applied to the Court
on behalf of the owners of part of the cargo on
board the Charles Bartlett, and also on behalf of
the representatives of three of the persons who lost
their lives, and prayed the Court to pronounce for
claims formerly made by them, but which it was
arranged should stand over until the decision of
the Judicial Committee on the original question was
given.
The COURT granted the prayer.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 14.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.)
IN RE EDWARD JONES.
The bankrupt was a woollen•draper, of No. 157,
Strand. This was the certificate meeting.
Mr. Linklater appeared for the assignees; Mr.
Lawrence for the bankrupt.
The bankrupt's account commenced November 1,
1849, with a capital of 2,3271., and closed with debts,
2,6161.; liabilities, 7,017/. The assets are, good
debts, 1,9611.; doubtful, 6761.; bad, 8431.; bills
receivable, bad, 1,6461.; other property, about 1601.
Mr. LINKLATER, for the assignees, said that neither
they nor any creditor had a single objection to make.
One of the assignees was a creditor for 1,000/.
Mr. LAWEANCE urged that the bankrupt was en-
titled to a certificate of the first class. He bad had a
loss of 3,6001. by discounting the bills of Messrs.
Williams and Rust, booksellers.
His HONOUR said that the bankrupt had not kept
his cash-book properly, and there would have been no
farther reason for complaint if he had made it pub-
lickly known that he was a bill discounter as well as
a tailor. By not doing so, bills to the amount of
7,0171. were proveable against the estate, which ought
to be divisible among the trade creditors. The assignee
might not, perhaps, complain, because he had adopted
the same course as the bankrupt. Oa the above
ground the certificate (second class) would be sus-
pended for three mouths.
Protection was granted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE
MANSION-HOUSE.
Henry Cromwell, who stated himself to be a com-
mercial traveller and commission agtint, was brought
before Alderman Wilson under the following cir-
cumstances.

Mr James Bowen, collector to Mr. Charles 11.
Bowen, of No. 101, Fenchurch-street, wine merchant,
said—About the 18th of November the prisoner called
at our offices, got four samples of wine, and ordered
some other goods to be sent to a captain living in the
neighbourhood of the Caledonian-road, Islington.
Upon inquiring after the captain we found that we
should act wisely in not leaving the goods, and we
acted upon the advice we received in the vicinity.
We then sent to inquire after the prisoner, but found
that the address he had given was that of a solicitor,
who complained that a great deal of trouble and an-
noyance was occasioned by calls from parties inquir-
ing after the prisoner, and that the fellow was not
known there at all. The prisoner had promised to
call the next morning, but he never came, and having
been given to understand that many tradespeople
were likely to be victimised by him, I gave him into
custody when I met him this morning in the street,
being convinced that he was a swindler.
Alderman WILSON—What did he say when he
asked you to supply him with the samples ? Witness
—lle said he was going to the captain of whom he
spoke, and to others whom he thought the wine might
suit, and that he would call again the next day and
give the orders, or pay for the samples.
The prisoner—The captain is a gentleman of first-
rate respectability, and is the owner of twelve or
fourteen houses.
I told this person, not that I wanted
the wine for the captain but for soma public-houses ;
and I accordingly called at the houses and spent my
money in them in trying to sell the wines, but could
not; and when he saw me in the street he collared me
as if I had robbed him.
Alderman WiLsort—Why did you not go to him
Prisoner next day with the samples ? (hesitating)—
Why, I was not well—oh, it was because I had Lot
succeeded in selling.
Alderman WILSON—Do
you mean that one tasted
and another tasted until the
did not think you samples were all gone.
and you
Prisoner—Just the case. were bound to go back ?
I could not bring the
samples back, of course.

Mr. C. IL. —ROWen, the principal of the house in