The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-19 00:00:00

IN RE ELLIS.

This bankrupt was a plumber, &o ; in the Minories, and
surrendered under a petition opened by Mr. Sorrell, Mark-
lane. The debts are about £l,OOO ; assets not yet stated.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Wir slow.)
IN RE dICKS—THE BRITISH COLUMBIA OVERLAND
TRANSIT COMPANY.

The was a meeting for choice of assignees in the matter
of this bankruptcy. The bankrupt had been a director of
the above company, and was sued by a Mr. Collingwood,
who had taken a passage of the Company, who failed to
complete their contract. The sum claimed for passage
money was £l6O, and the costs of the, action ran up the
judgment to £6OO.
Mr.Collingwood proved his debt, and was chosen assignee.
Mr. H. Harris, of Moorgate-street, is solicitor to the

estate.
The bankrupt is Comptroller of Corn Returns for the
Board of Trade.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
DAMAGES FOR NOT EMPLOYING A COOK.-NOYEL POINT

DEM/HULL V. REICHARDT.

This was an action to recover damages for broach of an
agreement, Mr. Perry, from Mr. Buchanan's, appeared
for the plaintiff, Mr. Beard representing the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff had been engaged by the
defendant, who is an eatinghouse-keeper, as cook at 30s.
per week and board. The defendant's wife, however, wrote
a letter to the effect that she believed the place would be too•
hard for him.

Mr. Porry called plaintiff, who said that he had been
employed as a cook at St. James's Hall. He could have
a good character from the head cook there.
Defendant observed that as plaintiff had left a situation
in consequence of the work being too hard, he felt justified
in refusing to employ him.
His Honour—l think that a man is justified in leaving a
situation if he finds the work too hard for him. lam of
opinion that defendant ought to have given a week's wages
when he refused to employ plaintiff.
Verdict for plaintiff, with coats.

A Uniform Plan for Metropolitan Railway

Schemes.

If the metropolis must be cut up into sections by rail-
ways, the least that we can demand is that the companies
shall be made to conform to some uniform and general
scheme, and that the junctions shall be sufficiently nume-
rous to afford adequate facilities to the metropolitan
traffic. This is a subject which Parliament will be bound
to investigate and settle during the coming Session, for it
would be intolerable to find, a few years hence, that we had
allowed the railway companies to take possession of the me-
tropolis ; and that our means of transit had been contracted
or rendered inconvenient by blundering projects or
jealous contentions. 'What the future of railways will be
in this metropolis is not easy to conjecture. Hitherto
London railways have been, for the greater part, merely
means for the conveyance of persons and goods to and from
the metropolis and the provinces. The internal traffic
of this great city has scarcely come under the con-
sideration of the projectors and managers of these
schemes. The Metropolitan Hallway, however, has inau•
gurated a new eta, and has already found many ambitious
imitators. Most of these, it is certain, will be thrust out of
the field of contest next session, and the real trial of
strength will be between Mr. Fowler, with him Metropolitan
Extensions, embracing the inner and outer circle lines, and
Mr. Hawkshaw with his junctions with the Charing-
crose Extension. It is premature to forecast the proba-
bilities of a struggle between two such doughty champions.
If Mr. Fowler have the report of the Lords' Committee
in his favour, he has against him all the interests along
the Thames embankment; besides the inherent fault
of the incompleteness of his design in its working
details. We have shown that, as it affects the City, Mr.
Fowler's circles do not provide for military junctions with
the long lines ; whilst Mr. Hawkshaw proposes to unite the
Great Northern, the Midland, and the North-Western with
his station at Charing-cross, whence passengers will be
carried straight into the City to the Cannon-street Terminus.
By this line, therefore, our friend Humphrey Hardworker
would be ()stabled to get to Birmingham without a change of
carriages, and without making such an extraordinary dr -
cumbeudibus as he would be required to make by the rival
railway.—City Press.