The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-23 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER COURT.

:Before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons Martin, Bram-
well, and Channell.)
POOLE V. LEWIS.

This action, it will be recollected, was tried a short time
ago, and a verdict given for the defendant. The plaintiff,
a fashionable tailor, carrying on business in Saville-row,
sued defendant for the sum of £3O, the value of certain arti-
cles of wearing apparel supplied to him. At the trial it was
contended the clothes were supplied on the usual terms,
viz,, six months' credit, but as that time had not expired the
amount was not yet recoverable, and the result was the jury
gave a verdict to that effect.

Mr. Hawkins, this morning, on the part of the plaintiff,
moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not
be set aside on the ground of misdirection, that the verdict
was perverse, and also that there was no evidence to go to
the jury to support the terms of the contract as pleaded by
the defendant,

Mr. Baron Martin said he was not satisfied with the re-
sult of the trial,

The Court granted a rule to show cause.

COURT OF PROBATE.
ISAACS V. IVHALIIY.

The will in this case was contested on the ground that it
was not made in conformity with the act, and also that it
was invalid for want of the necessary wi'nesscs. The pro.
perty in question was not of a very large amount. The in-
strument was drawn up at the request of the testatrix, Mrs.
Isaacs, by a female friend, who, as she herself stated, was
" not quite a lawyer," and, although her name appeared
on the paper it was placed there, she stated, merely as the
writer of the will and not as a witness. The sister of Mrs.
Isaacs signed the document as did also the female servant

___ •
The Court decided in favour of the will, the costs not to
be paid out of the estate.

GLEN T. BURGESS AND SON.

This case was postponed for a fortnight on the ground of
the illness of a material witness.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fano )

IN RE BURTON-IMPORTANT QUESTION UNDER DEED OP

ARRANGEMENT.
Mr. Doria appeared in thie case to apply for sanction to issue
execution against Henry Burton, under the following cir-
cumstances :—Burton had obtained protection on executing
a deed of assignment for the benefit of his creditors, the
majority of whom had agreed to accept a composition of
2s. 6d. in the pound; but Messrs. Davis and Co., dissen-
tient creditors, having obtained judgment against him,
sought to recover by execution, but the sheziff refused to
execute the writ, as Burton held the certificate of the regis-
trar and protection, the deed having been duly registered.
Mr. Dotia now contended that the deed was not in con-
formity with the Act of Parliament, as the property had
been assigned to the trustee, whose receipt was to be a suffi-
cient release, and the creditors had to look to him only for
payment of this composition. The learned counsel contended
that the deed was fraudulent, but unless the c' urt granted
the application the dissenting creditors had no power of
testing the validity of the deed, whereas if Burton was taken
in execution and applied for his release they would have the
opportunity of doing so.
Mr. Griffiths contended that there was no ground for
suspecting any fraudulent intention, and if the trustee did
not act properly he would be liable, but the learned counsel
did not think the court would stultify itself by granting the
application when all the requirements of the act have been
complied with and sanctioned by the officer of the court.
His Honour reserved his judgment.