The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-08 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before the Lard Chief Juati,e and Justices Crompton
Blackburn, and Mellor.)
COL. DICKSON V. GEN. PEEL AND OTHERS.

The Attorney-General said he appeared to show cause
against a rule obtained by Mr. Coleridge, on the part of the
plaintiff, agast the defendan a, Gen. Peel, Lord Comber-
mere, and ihe Earl of Wilton, as to certain interrogatories
which it was sought to compel Gen. Peel to answer. The
learned gentleman said, in the year 1858, the plaintiff was
lieutenant-colonel of the Tower Hamlets Militia, and the
defendant was then Secretary at 'War. In that year certain
complaints were made against Colonel Dickson to
General Peel, and as the regiment had been dis-
embodied more than one year, according to the Mutiny
Act, no court-martial could be held, but General Peel
directed a court of inquiry to assemble, and in obedience to
the finding of the court, Color el Dickson was dismissed her
Majesty's service. He then brought the present action
which had been pending for some time against the three
defendants charging them with conspiracy, or with that
which amounted to as he asserted it was in consequence
of the malicious representations made to her Nlajesty by the
three defendants, that he had been dismissed the service,
The case had long been ripe for hearing when an
application was made on the part of the plaintiff,
at Judges' chambers, to put certain interrogatories
to General Peel with a view of eliciting certain infor-
mation, The questions in all amounted to seventeen, but
some of them were struck out by the learned judge, and a
rule had ham obtainea to show cause why questions 11,
13 and 14 should not be restored. He contended that
General Peel was altogether justified in refusing to answer
questions, because the plaintiff would elicit quite sufficient
intormation by those interrogat .ries which had been allowed
to stand by the learned judge to enable him to go on with
his case.
The Attorney-General was proceeding.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Guulburn.)
IN RE PEPPER.

This bankrupt was an actu ay, and came before th,
Court with heavy liabilities in connection with public com-
panies, in one of which the Life Assurance Treasury for
£28,000, that company beinz under proceedings for wind-
ing up under the Court of Chancery.
The bankrupt obtained his order for discharge.
IN RE

This was an application for release from custody.
His Honour said that on referring to the Copy Causes
(a list showing the cause of the debtors' detention), there
was one for contempt of Court in not paying a large sum
of money into the Court of Chancery, whereupon he was
taken under attachment.
His Honour said it was a case in which he could not in-
terfere to relieve the bankrupt.
Mr. Sargood said that Mr. Commissioner Holroyd had
held that an attachment merely for the non payment of
money was a mere debt, and in the absence of any other
allegation of contempt he granted the release.
His Honour said that every case had its peculiar facts.
The court had a discretionary power, and in this case he
would exercise it by refusing the application, but the bank-
rupt, if advised to do so, might appeal.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd and Mr. Commissioner
Fonblanque.)
IN RE ALFRED GURNEY.
This bankrupt, described ks of Upper-street, Islington,
wine and spirit merchant, came up and passed his exami-
nation on accounts by Messrs. Hart Brothers an'l Hayles.
The debts, unsecured creditors, amount to 17,383 ;to ditto
holding security, £19,287. Cr., good debts. £901; pro-
rerty, £1,275; other interests, x 450; property in hands of
creditors, £10,915; deficiency, £14,039.
TdE LONDON AND PROVINCIAL DISCOUNT COMPANY,
A. pro forma dividend mewing was held to-day, and a
few proofs admitted. The debts are stated at £7,000, assets
£1,500.