The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 28, 1863.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.--This Day.

GOODWOOD RACES-THIS DAY.
BY ELECTRIC TELEGRATII,
CRAVEN STAKES.

Gunner _ ____
1
Waterwitch 2

Bosh 3
Five ran.

STEWARDS' CUP.
Bto lon the field (offered)
12 to 1 apt Cheerful (taken)

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroy.l.)
IN RE' COLONEL WAUGH.

To-day was appointed for hearing the application of this
bankrupt to be discharged from custody.
Mr. Roxburgh and Mr. Sargood appeared for the bane;
rupt. Mr. Roxburgh said this was an application made by
Colonel Waugh for release from custody.
The bankrupt, it will be remembered, was arrested at the
suit of an execution creditor, and then detained at the suit
of the official manager of the Eastern Banking Company
for a sum of £50,000, on a promissory note, dated the 19th
of November, 1856, payable at four months after date, and
interest thereon, at the rate of £5 per cent, per annum, un-
til paid.
Tne learned counsel said that the execution creditor had
signed a discharge, and therefore it was unnecessary to say
anything on that point, but he had to address himself to the
detainer by the Eastern Banking Company. He stated
that the capias was not issued until six years and six days
after the date of the promissory note, but although that
proceeding was issued so far back as March last, they had
never proceeded to a declaration, no doubt feeling that
if they did so, the statute of limitation would be
pleaded; but as they had not done so, he had
been debarred from having the question tried as to his
liability, and except by the exercise of the power of the
Court to order the discharge, the bankrupt would neces-
sarily remain in prison until the latter end of October,
when he would come up ft,r his last examination. He
submitted it was a case in which the court had full power
to order the discharge, for the bankrupt was not in custody
on any execution or judgment, but only on an affidavit made
that £50,000 was due, and the bankrupt could not give bail
to the extent of £lOO,OOO. He avowed on the part of the
bankrupt that he did not shrink from the fullest
inquiry, and denied that he had borrowed any
money from the banker without ample security,
which the company might have realised. He also urged
that the health of the bankrupt would be most seriously
affected by any longer incarceration. He then call• d
Mr. Wm. Jones, a physician, who gave evidence to that
effect.

Mr. C. E. Lewis then proceeded to address the Court in
opposition on behalf of the Eastern Banking Company, but
Mr. Roxburgh contended that Mr. Lewis had no locus
standi, as the company was not a judgment or execution
creditor.
Hie Honour concurred.

Mr. Linklater then opposed for the assignees, and Mr.
Roxburgh objected to his being heard, as the assignees were
in no way parties to the detention of the bankrupt, as they
were chosen long before the proceedings were taken by the
bank, and they were not entitled to take up the opposition
of an individual creditor.

His Honour, however, held that, according to the prac-
;ice of the Court in all cases where there were assignees,
;hey were always asked whether they had any objection to
he release.

Mr. Linklater then took an objection, on the ground that
when a person was in custody under the order of a judge
of a superior court this Court would not order a release;
the assignees, however, would not object if the bankrupt
would give substantial bail not to leave the country, and to
attend on all occasions when called upon until he pas,ed his
last examination. He then called Col. Waugh with a view
to show that the bankrupt had joined the bank as director
without capital, and that he had incurred a debt to the
extent of £24,000, and he urged that the bankrupt ought
not to be discharged until he had given a satisfactory account
of this very sum of money, and also of some mines in Spain
with which the bankrupt had been connected, and in which
the creditors claimed an interest.

Mr. Roxburgh complained of the statements by Mr,
Linklater, whi,:h would go forth to the public without
Colonel Waugh having anyopportunity of answering; and
he objected to a general examination of the bankrupt,
which he could not be expected to be able to answer with-
out books or accounts.

His Honour held that Mr. Linklater was entitled to
examine any point which could affect the question of
discharge.

The examination of Colonel Waugh was then proceeded
with.

After a long discussion, his Honour refused to discharge
the bankrupt without two sureties in £2,000 each, and him-
self in £4,000. He was taken back to prison,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

WESTMINSTER.

IMPUDENT ROBBERY.—Henry Brayley, a rough-looking
fellow, was placed at the bar before Mr. Arnold, charged
with stealing three coats and other articles of clothing, the
proper, y of Mr. Henry Larner, builder, Chelsea.

Charlotte Batfield, servant to Mr. Larner, said that yes-
terday evening the prisoner came to the side door of the
house and asked if Mr. Larner could give him a job. He
was told to wait in the yard, which after a little while he
did, and then came and knocked at the area deer, and was
again informed that if he wanted day work he must remain.
Shortly after that she saw the prisoner coming from a
greenhouse with a bundle in his hand, and she knew that
he must hare been upstairs in some of the bedrooms. She
stopped him, and found that he had two coats in the
bundle and some other wearing apparel, and had put
a third coat on his back. The property had
been safe only two minutes before in Mr. Lar-
ner's bed-room, and when prisoner found himself
detected by the servant, he threw down the bundle, stripped
off the other stolen coat, and then took to his heels.
A policeman said that he was attracted by a noise of per-
sons in pursuit of the prisoner, and saw him running at
full pace, calling out lustily, " Stop thief," and followed by
others, who were also crying the same. As the prisoner
was the foremost of those running, witness seized and se-
cured him, when accused endeavoured to persuade him that
it was a mistake—that he (prisoner) was not a thief, but a
person who had been robbed, but witness refused to let him
go.
Prisoner—l am guilty; it is no good denying it.
Prisoner was remanded for a week.