The Sun.
London, England, 1855-12-11 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIuNS.

The December General Sessions of the Peace for the
County of Middlesex commenced yesterday morning, at
Clerkenwell, before Mr. Witham (in the ab ence of the
Assistant-Judge) and a bench of magistrates. There
were for trial 43 prisoners charged with felony, and 5
with misdemeanour.

Wm. .11PArtItur and Joseph. Rose, convicted at the last
session of stealing a vast quantity of slates, to the value
of about 5001., the property of a slate merchant named
Sheffield, were brought up to receive sentence.
The Assistant Judge referred to the case, and said that
it appeared that M'Arthur was the greatest offender of
the three who were tried. One of them he sentenced at
the time.

Mr. Sleigh said he was instructed on behalf of
M'Arthur, who had hitherto borne a good character,
and the fact of his having pleaded guilty would not be
taken into consideration against him.
Mr. Metcalfe, for. the prosecution, said the prisoners
were remanded for judgment on the suggestion that
M'Arthur might make some disclosure as to the remain-
der of the stolen property, but be had done nothing of
the kind.

Mr. Spiller, a slater, spoke to the previous good cha,•
meter of M`..4.rthur. He had known him 30 years, and
he was apprenticed to the witness.

The Assistant-Judge said a more daring or impudent
robbery he had never heard of. There were collected
on a wharf from sixty to seventy thousand slates, and
the person having care of them went to Brighton for a
few days. During his absence M'Arthur, and others
who acted as 1:43 agents, set to work right and left, and
sold them as his own, and so got rid of property amount-
log in value to near 5001. It was impossible to treat
sucl► a case with anything but the utmost severity, and
the sentenc3 therefore on M'Arthur was that he be kept
in penal servitude for four years, and upon Rose that he
be kept to bard labour for 18 calendar months.
Charles Symons, a tall, powerful man, was charged
with unlawfully and maliciously wounding James Kerr.
Mr. Clarkson appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Coo-
per for the prisoner.
The facts were these :—The prisoner was a labourer
at the London Docks, and on the 17th of November he
was turned out for some misconduct. He had been
drinking, and on being ejected he called out for a knife,
swearing he would do for somebody. In a short time he
wade his appearance in the Dock, with a table knife,
which he brandished over his head, and whets requested
to go by the constable, lie made two thrusts at him.
The gatekeeper fetched his staff, which the prisoner
snatched from him, and dealt the prosecutor, the watch-
man, two violent blows on the bead with it, causing a
considerable flow of blood. He then got outside, and
stood challenging any one to corns near him, holding the
knife in one band, and the staff in the other, when Jas.
O'Connor, 177 H, closed with him, and with the assi•-t-
-ance of three soldiers wrested the weapon from him, and
took him into custody.
The• prisoner withdrew his plea of not guilty, and
pleaded guilty, by the advice of his counsel.
Mr. Cooper then addressed the court in mitigation,
and urged the prisoner's sincere sorrow for what had
occurred.

The Assistant• Judge sentenced the prisoner to six
months' hard labour.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY—Dec. 11.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)

IN RR STRAHAN, PAUL, AND CO.-IMPORTANT QUESTION AS
TO THE ASSETS OF THE BANK AND OF SALFORD AND CO.

special sitting took place to-day, for the purpose of
hearing the arguments on the question of a proposed di-
vision of the assets of the two estates. The bankrupts
carried on business as navy agents, under the style of
"Halford and Co," in addition to their banking busi-
ness in the Strand. The former firm, it may be remem-
bered, was nearly in insolvent circumstances at the time
of the bankruptcy. The question was raised by Mr.
Bagley, on behalf of Capt. W. Herringharn, a creditor of
Halford and Co., whether the assets of that firm ought
not to Lo kopb nwparate, and dietiasesoa exeissi V eiy
amongst the creditors of the house. Evidence has since
been taken as to the mode of conducting the two busi-
nesses, and the matter now came on for argument.
Mr. Bagley, for the claimant, stated that previous to 1835
the banking business was carried on by Mr. Snow, Mr.
Strahan, and the late Sir J. Paul. The navy agency busi-
ness was carried on down to 1836 or 1837iu the names of
Cook and Halford, and Halford and Co., when Mr.
Halford becoming incapacitated for business, the late Sir
John Paul undertook the management for him. Mr.
Halford died in 1837, and the late banking firm then be-
came the managers of the business, intimation of the
change being given to several of the customers. In 1842,
Mr. Bates became a partner in the bank, regular articles
being entered into which also provided for his admission
into the navy agency business. The articles clearly con-
templated that the business should be kept distinct, and
provided for their being carried on in separate premises,
and that separate books should be kept, and this agree-
ment had been strictly carried out. Mr. Bates'is position
was peculiar--he brought in no capital, and had a fixed
salary, in the first instance, of 8001. a-year, without par-
ticipating in the profits. Mr. Strahan was to have 5 9ths
and Sir J. D. Paul 4-9ths. There were provisions in
the agreement exempting Mr. Bates from any liability
to loss, and also excluding him from any interest in the
business on the death of the partners. Mr. Justice
Storey laid it down that a community in profit and loss
was the very essence of partnership, and the same view
was taken by Mr. Collier. Mr. Collier was undoubtedly
held out to the world as a partner ; but that was a very
tferent thing from his being a partner as between them-
se'ves. In the case of Reay and Reay, and numerous
others, the distinction was drawn between these two kinds
of partnership. In the present instance Mr. Bates was
clearly not a partner, in the true sense of the word, in
either business. He had certainly held himself out to
the world as a partner in the bankin4 business ; but in
the navy agency business he had taken no part whatever
beyond occasionally selling stock when desired to do so.
His name had also been inserted in powers of attorney
given by the customers of Halford and Co. to the
house ; but even this did not constitute him a part-
ner, nor did it give any information relative to
those customers who did not make powers of attor-
ney. There was no evidence whatever that Mr. Bates
had held himself out to the world as a partner in Wil-
ford and Co.'s ; in fact, lie never went there except when
he was sent, and no customer of the house was ever in-
troduced to him. But assuming that Mr. Bates had
acted as a partner in both houses, there were still good
grounds for a distinction of the assets, on the same prin-
ciple which authorised the distinction of joint and sepa-
rate estates. Where parties carried on different busi-
nesses in distinct premises, it had been held that one
estate might prove against the other though the parties
were identical. The learned gentleman cited several cases.
Mr. Hannen, for the assignees, admitted the principle
that separate estates belonged to the separate creditors,
but observed that the question here was, what were se-
parate estates ? The deed of partnership constituted Mr.
Bates a partner just as much in one business as in the
other, i❑ fact the two were spoken of as one, the " busi-
ness of bankers and navy agents." It was said there had
been no communication to the customers of the fact of
Bates's partnership in Halford and Co., but Captain Her-
ringham himself admitted that he had received a circular
announcing some change in the firm. It was also in evi-
dence that after Strahan and Co. took the business the
cheques were headed in their names, and though the
change in question did not show the introduction of Mr.
Bates's name, it showed that the banking firm, whoever
they might be, were in reality the principals in the other
business, In all cases cited there bad been firms con-
sisting of different members. Here the firms were the
same, and even the businesses to some extent ; for the
house of Halford and Co. had also carried on a banking
business.

His Honour said, in this case it was of great impor-
tance to the creditors that no delay should take place in
the decision of this question, as they were, of course,
anxious to come to a dividend ; he should therefore state
his opinion on it at once. There would be a good
deal in what had been said as to Strahan and
Paul being the only real partners, if the name
of Halford and Co. had not continued ; but as
that style or firm conveyed no meaning to anybody, it
was everybody's business to inquire who were the part-
ners. No doubt Mr. Bates was a partner in both con-
cerns ; if not, he was not a partner in either • and the
result was the same. The question was, whether the
Court could order separate accounts to be taken, when
the partners were the same in each concern. In thel case
of an individual would it be said that separate accounts
should be taken because they had carried on two sepa-
rate trades in the same' town ? A general merchant
trading in sugars, ships, and a variety of things, opened
a separate account on his books for every article of mer-
chandise. In the event of his failure, could a creditor
who had sold him a ship come in and say, " That ship
which I sold you has been profitable, your acesunts
prove it ; pay me for it ;" thus claiming an advantage
over the other creditors ? Such a principle can never be
admitted. And in this respect there was no difference
between the case of three partners and that of an indi-
vidual trader. He bad looked carefully at all the dif-
ferent authorities which had been cited, and found that
they all, without a single exception, referred to cases
where the partners in the different firms were not the
same. Under all the circumstances it appeared to him
there_ must be a joint account, and that atl the creditors
must come in under it.

The costs of the present hearing were allowed.