The Sun.
London, England, 1839-09-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT. SEPD. 25.
Robert Hugh, Franks, the hatter, whose case ap-
peared in The Sun of yesterday; again came up.
The case, it was admitted, had resolved itself into the
investigation respecting the deed of assignment made to
Mr. Thompson, for the benefit of the creditors, which
it was alleged, on the part of the opposing creditors,
had benefited the insolvent, and not the body of the
creditors.
Mr. COOKE, the opposing Counsel, strenuously con-
tended, notwithstanding the opinion given by the Court,
that there had been a collusion between the insolvent
and others, by which the creditors had been deprived of
considerable property. The history of the case was
short. The insolvent was a bankrupt in 1837, when
he owed 8,0001., which now remained due, and in less
than two years he again failed, owing upwards of
3,000/. ; for 2,900/., he had obtained consideration,
giving up; as appeared from his schedule, debts to 433/.
The insolvent had suffered not the slightest inconve-
nience, he had not been deprived of his place of busi-
ness, and had remained at large with a good stock in
trade, and the creditors were to look on it as the result
of a fair and honest proceeding. The books had not
been filed, the creditors had obtained no information,
nor were they to be benefited by the stock
on the premises, the whole being protected by
Mr. Thompson, who was called a trustee for the
creditors ; he was trustee for the insolvent and no other
person. He submitted that the deed was fraudulent—
that the property had been wasted. The insolvent had
called it a "protective instrument." If that was the
case why had he not gone to prison on his arrest, and
given up the property to the court ? The deed was
invalid, having been made within three months, and it
was now admitted that the property would be given up.
These circumstances rendered this cdse one of no ordi-
nary occurrence, and one that required the vigilance of
the Court on the part of the creditors.
Ultimately the case was adjourned to Wednesday, the
9th October, and the account ordered to be filed on
Saturday next.
Mary Mellon, who was before the Court some time
ago, again appeared. She was opposed by Mr. Wood-
roffe, on the part of the creditors, and supported by Mr.
Cooke.
It was contended that the insolvent had made away
with her property, and very strong language was used
towards her.
The insolvent, who had been out on bail, was com-
mitted to prison.

SHERIFFS' CO URT—TxuRsDAr.
PARK V. MORGAN.

This was an action to recover the amount of a milk
score. The defendant had purchased a milk walk from
the proprietor, and the plaintiff agreed to supply them
with milk.* The witnesses for the plaintiff proved that
the milk was delivered regularly fora certain period to
Gwinifield Morgan, the cousin of the defendant. The
defence set up was, that the defendant was not liable for
the debt, for that, in fact, he had lent his cousin the
money to purchase the milk walk, and that she it was
who was indebted.

The case excited considerable amusement from the
manner in which the examination of the witnesses was
conducted by the Counsel.
The Jury returned a verdict for 71. 175., being the
full amount claimed.

CAIN V. LORD CHURCHILL.
This case came on for trial this morning. The
plaintiff, James Cain, is a carver and gilder residing at
Richmond, and the defendant, Lord Charles Spencer
Churchill, is now residing at No. 14, Wyndham-street,
Bryanston-square; and the action was brought to re-
cover the sum of 61. 4s. Gd. for oak and gold picture
frames, to which the defendant pleaded the statute of
limitations in bar to the claim.
Witnesses were called on behalf of the plaintiff, but
they only succeeded in proving the delivery of a pair of
gold and oaken frames, with the glasses, in May,
1833, of the value of 51.
The Jury, under the direction of the Under Sheriff,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the last-mentioned
amount.

BROWNE V. CHURCHILL.
This action was brought against the same defendant
for the sum of 21. 12s. 6d., for goods supplied in the
year 1834 and 1835 by the plaintiff, a linendraper of
Oxford-street. _

It was proved that some silk handkerchiefs, blankets,
and a rug, were ordered by the defendant, and the goods
were delivered (with the exception of one article of
35., which his Lordship took away in his pocket) at his
reiidence in Wyndham-street.
The Jury found for the amount claimed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION HO USE.

SINGULAR CASE OF DESERTING 'A
WlFE.—Arlkur
Hughes, who stated that he had been the commander
of a vessel, was brought before the Lord Mayor under
the following singular circumstances :

It appeared from the statement of Emma Hughes,
the wife of the prisoner, that lie married her about four
years ago, and after sleeping with her for one night he
deserted her, and she saw him no more until yesterday,
when she met him in Cheapside, in the company of a
woman, and gave him in charge. She had been informed
that he had another wife living.
Hughes, in answer to the charge, said that about four
years ago he came to London, and in seeking for lodg-
ings, me; with the complainant, who directed him to her
father's house, where there was a parlour and bed room
to let. He was informed that there were ten or fifteen
hundred pounds belonging to the girl, which would be
made over to her if he married her. She also said that
she had received a good education, and played the piano
to perfection. He took very little notice of all this,
until one evening the father urged him to marry her, and
he accordingly went to the Vicar-General and obtained
a special license. They were married the next day, and
he' went away the day following, not finding his wife
what he expected her to be. On his return to London
some time afterwards, he ascertained that his wife had
been sleeping with the steward of his vessel, and also
with one of the ordinary seamen. He also found that
known for fvor two came
you
she was a common street-walker in the Commercial-road.
The LORD MAYOR—You ought not to make such
charges without being able to prove them. If you can
bring evidence to prove her a common street-walker,
I will hear it, but if you do not it will be worse for you.
Hughes affirmed that he could do so.
Theto marry
or three days.
Loan a
MAYOR
man
Whom
mt he ; 0 cu o
hmapdl a
onlyi n a n t
An elderly female, who had accompanied the wife,
said it was because he promised to make a lady of her.
The LORD MAYon—We must give time to find out
if
some of your other wives,
you nave any. If you
will serve one woman in this way you will another.
Hughes—There would be great difficulty in finding
them.
..

no doubt we shall hear some-
thingand give your other wives, if you
We shall see. If this case goes
The LORD MAYOR--
before the public I have
more of you. I will give you till Tuesday next to
prove your statement,
have any, an opportunity to come forward and claim you.
Hughes—Am Ito be detained in custody ?
The 'Loup MAYOR_ Yes, unless you can find good
bail.

The prisoner was then remanded.
Maria was committed for trial, for stealing
a drs4 from the shop of Mr. Moses Hart, of 29,
Houndsditch.

GUILDHALL.
Charlotte Hemp and Louisa Marlin, Who were re-