The Sun.
London, England, 1863-01-15 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons Martin, Bram
well, and Chanuell.)
BAXENDALE V, SMITH.

Mr. Sergeant Shee moved in this case for a new trial,
The plaintiff is the extensive carrier, known as Pickford'e,
and the defendant was the contractor for the construction of
some of the work connected with the Metropolitan Rail.
way. The case was tried before the Lord Chief Baron last
term, when the jury gave a verdict in favour of the plain-
tiff, and this decision it was sought to reverse. The circum-
stances that led to these proceedings were shortly as fol-
lows. One of the waggons belonging to plaintiff was pro-
ceeding along the Marylebone-road, near Osnaburg-
street, upon which was a large iron girder, and 20 horses
being attached to the vehicle. When near to the spot
named the roadway sunk, and the vehicle became fixed,
and it became necessary to remove the girder with the
assistance of screw jacks and other appliances. In doing
so the girders were injured to the extent of £2O. There are
other actions pending and one of the questions to be decided
was, whether the contractors had complied with the terms
of the Act of Parliament which laid it down that six
inches of sifted granite should be placed on the surface of
the road.

Their lordships said they would give their decision to
morrow.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
CRITCHELL V. CRITCHELL.

This part heard suit was resumed this morning. It was
to test the validity of the will of Mr. Critchell, late the
proprietor of the Golden Fleece publichouse, Kent. street,
Southwark.

The deceased died on the 27th of July, and by the will in
dispute, which was executed two days previously, the tes-
tators constituted the plaintiff his sole executor and legatee.
The brother of the testator alleged that the will was not
duly executed, and that at the time of its execution the
testator was not of sound disposing capacity. The will
was made by filling up one of the printed forms,
which, it was stated for the plaintiff, was read over
to the decease before he signed it in the presence of several
witnesses.

[The case was proceeding when we went to press.]

COURT OP BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)

IN RR TROTT V. TROTT.

His Honour gave judgment in this case. The bank-
rupts were merchants in Bristol, and had been in partner-
ship, and had filed two separate petitions in the Bristol
Court, and an application was made that the petitions
should be consolidated or dismissed and a joint petition
filed. It appeared that the separate debts did not exceed
£2O each, and, being under £3OO, ought to have been pre-
sented in the County Court. His Honour said that as
there were no assets under the joint estate, it would not be
advisable to incur additional expense, as the joint creditors
could prove under the separate estates, and receive a divi-
dend out of the surplus. He had searched for precedents,
and was satisfied that he had the power to grant the appli-
cation, but he had also a discretion, and he should, there-
fore, refuse the application.
DISMISSAL OF DETITION.—IN RB BIIRBORES.
This bankrupt was described as of Harley-street, Caven-
dish-square, lodging-house keeper.

Mr, Buchanan said the bsnirupt filed a petition in per-
son, and stated that bie debts did not exceed 4300, but he
afterwards discovered that they did, and the present appli-
cation was made to dismiss the petition. He (Mr.
Buchanan) said he did not apply to put on the additional
stamp, as he had, in a similar case, applied to another
learned Commissioner for that purpose, but which was re-
fvaed.
Application granted.