The Sun.
London, England, 1839-09-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
IN RE THOMAS JAMES FELLGATE.
It will be recollected that in this case the insolvent,
in June last, was heard in the matter of his petition,
when his discharge was opposed by a Mr. Thomas
Harris, a brewer, to whom the insolvent had been col-
lecting clerk, and to whom he was indebted near 3,0001.
when he was sentenced to eighteen months' imprison-
ment for a breach of trust.
Immcdiatcly after the Court pronounced the judg-
ment, the insolvent (who had the discharge from the
detaining creditor in his pocket) left the country, by
which Mr. Harris had been deprived of the custody
of the prisoner pursuant to the adjudication of the
Court, he not being at that time a detaining creditor.
Mr. WOODROFPE, on the part of Mr. Harris, applied
to the Court to cancet the adjudication, fortified by the
opinion of her Majesty's Attorney-General, who had
been consulted on this case, as to whether " the insol-
vent, having obtained his discharge, not under the adju-
dication of the Court, but from his detaining creditor,
and without having undergone any part of the penalty
awarded by the Court at the suit of Mr. Harris, could
be considered as having received the benefit of the Act
of Parliament."
The .ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave his opinion that "the
insolvent must be considered as having renounced the
benefit of his discharge by the Court under the Act of
Parliament."
The Court, under all circumstances, ordered that the
adjudication be delivered up and cancelled.
The Insolvent, by this decision, will be taken again.

SHERIFFS' COURT, GULDITALL, SEPT. 27.
ONE OF THE EFFECTS OF THE BASTARDY CLAUSE.
SLACK V. WELLS.

Mr. Ryland was for the plainiiff7Mr. Petersdorf for
the defence.
It happened that about seven years ago an intimacy
subsisted between the two parties, the result of which
was, that his client became the mother of a child, of
which Mr. Wells is the reputed father ; and as a
dernier resort, the present action was brought to re-
cover the sum of 71. 103., being an arrear of 3s. a week,
which had, down to a certain period, been paid by the
plaintiff for the nutriment, maintenance, and habiliments
of the child in question. It would he necessary for
him (Mr. Ryland) to state the facts as clearly as possi-
ble, because he was aware that he might have a legal
difficulty to contend with. The child was born in
March, 1833, but, on condition that it was not affiliated,
the defendant agreed to pay 3s. weekly for its succour,
and that he continued to do until the passing of the
late amended Poor-law Act, when the father dis-
covered that, as no order of affiliation had been made,
he was no longer bound by law to contribute to the
support of a child, which, by his former act, he had
tacitly admitted to be his own. He had since married,
and that circumstance might have produced an effect
on his mind. The plaintiff, having refused payment,
the child had no friend but its mother, and she un-
happily, by the change in the law, could not affiliate it
upon the defendant ; but it appeared that a negotiation
took place, aid he consented for a time to pay the weekly
stipend through the medium of a person of the name of
Thompson, but, from some cause or other. Mr. Wells
changed his mind and relinquished the payment. A
further application was made, when Mr. Wells, in words
or in effect, said, " Tell her to send in her bill, and I'll
pay it." But this promise had never been kept ; hence
the helpless child remained an entire burden upon a
comparatively helpless mother. The question to be
considered was, were these expressions of a nature to
render him liable in point of law—the law as it now
stood ? These facts, coupled with his verbal expres-
sions, which had been noticed, raised the question—has
he, or has he not, by a subsequent tender and promise,
taken himself out of the purview of the clause under
which he sought to shelter himself ?
Mr. Petersdorf, for the defendant, submitted that after
hearing the opening speech of his friend, the learned
person presiding on the bench would be of opinion with
him (Mr. P.) that this action could not be sustained.
In the present case, the defendant disclaimed his liabi-
lity, and declared that he would not pay any more on
account of the child in future.

Mr. SergeantAaAsiis—l understood that, after the
passing of the amended Act, as it is called, having in
the first instance refused payment, he entered into an
arrangement with a Mr. Thompson, and resumed it for
a time.

Mr. Petersdorf—Yes, my Lord ; but you will observe
that there was no original obligation (alluding to the
non-affiliation of the infant).
Mr. Sergeant AlABlN—Gentlemen, I have a strong
opinion that the action cannot be sustained, and I am
very sorry for it ; that being so, I think, Mr. Ryland,
you had better consent to a nonsuit.
The defendant was then called in legal form.
Mr. Sergeant ARAEN (addressing the Counsel and
Attorney for the defence).—Tell him from me that it
is my anxious desire that he pay the demand ; and I
think the Jury agree with me (the Jurors arose and
bowed an affirmative), that there can be no doubt that
he is the father of this child.

WESTMINSTER COURT OF REQUESTS.
WITHER PATRICK HOGAN V. MISTHER MICHAEL
MIFILPHT.
" apherman, yer banners," said Misther Hogan,
" and Mike owes me nine and fippence."
" A fisherman !" said a COMMISSIONER, doubtingly,
and eyeing Misther Patrick Hogan. " And where is
it, Patrick, that you cast your nets ?"
" Its rig'larly iviry maruing afore five at Billingsgate
that I Bits me fish, if that's what yer hanner manes."
COMMISSIONER—And what has your being a fisher-
man to do with the claim against your friend Michael
Murphy ?
Misther Hogan—Faix , and don't be after pnttin' a
dead stopper upon me, if you plaze. As I said afore,
yer hanner, I'm a fisherman and :keep pigs. and Mike
owes me nine and fippence for board and lodging.
COMMISSIONER—What have you to say to this claim,
Mr. Murphy ?
Misther Murphy—l owns to the ladging, Misther
Hogan (turning to the plaintiff) ; but if you bate me to
smithereens, its not a flake you'll be afther getting for
the boord.
COMMISSIONER—Then you deny having boarded at
your friend Hogan's house ?
Misther Murphy—Thrue for yez. Divil any boord
was it I had from Misther Hogan. I maled myself
(that is, he provisioned himself), and a wilcum uv his
fire it warn't that I had to cook me males wid.
Misther Hogan—Mike, Mike, you wouldn't be after
swearing that same.
Misther Murphy—And its me oath that I do mane,
Pat Hogan. How coul4 I cook me mate, yer banners
(addressing the Commissioners), if Misthress Hogan
hadn't a gridiron ?
Misther Hogan—Don't be after exposing me, Mike.
Misther Murphy—Not a bit uv it, Misther Hogan,
but its nicissary I should make me difince, and how can
I do that Misther Hogan, widout telling their banners
all about the gridiron ? Plaza yer (turning to the
Commissioners), Misthress Hogan hadn't a gridiron,
bating three bars widout a handle, bekase in the shindy
afore last, Teddy Henessy tuk it to difind himself wid
agin Misthress Hogan.
Misther Hogan—Bad luck to yez, Michael Murphy,
for not disremembering the shindy, seeing that it was
at the wake it tuk place.
Misther Murphy—What shall I do for a difince if I
lave the gridiron out ? Well yer banners, Teddy He-
nessey took that same gridiron to difind himself wid agin
Misthress Hogan, and she was so mighty quick intirely
upon Teddy that she tuk it way from him afore he
could say " I'm ready, Misthress Hogan," and she
bate him wid it till she bate two of the bars nut, and the
haadle coma'd off. And now Misther Hogan (appeal-
ing triumphantly to his friend Patrick) will you plaze
tell their hammers how I could live wid yez when you
hadn't a gridiron ?
Misther Hogan—Why, Mike, yez had a gridiron of
yer own.
Misther Murphy—There, yer banners (said Michael
triumphantly,) be confesses that same.
Misther Hogan, who was unable to prove that Mur-
phy had boarded at his house, he (Hogan) having been
in Hereford at the time, wanted the Commissioners to
compel Murphy to swear that he had " nulled himself."
This they declined.
Misther Murphy then pleaded a set-off to that por-
tion of the claim made for the rent. Upon being
asked to state the nature of the set-off he handed in
his account, of which the following is a copy—
" Pat Hogan oes Mik Murphy.
" I wint to Biliinsgit a mundi marnin widout your
donki afthur yowr herins won shilin.
" I giv yowr piggs grans hund pytyates, to des (two
days) hund druv to bars buv yoeir grydhirne in yer sti
arnut her shilin."
" That's what I dun for yer," said Misther Murphy.
The CommissioNEns decided that it was not a valid
set-off, and Michael had to pay for his lodgings.

Nothing appears to meet the wishes of the work-
ing classes so much as cheap exhibitions of
the pro-
ducts of machinery and models of mechanical inven-
tions, intermixed with specimens of Natural History
and works of Art combining instruction and amuse-
ment. The example of Manchester has been followed
in most manufacturity, towns. That of the Mechanics'
Institution has just closed ; it was so attractive that
95,000 admissions are recorded, with receipts at first of
6d., and latterly at 3d only, to the amount of 2,0001.
The Society for obtaining free access to National Mo-
numents, and specimens of Art, Natural History, &c.,
seem to have moved in unison with the people's own
tendencies ; and it may be hoped that Museums, as
as well a s Libraries, open to the people, will ere long
b e provided for the accommodation of every large town
in the kingdom. It is pleasing to hear from the setae
quarter that Mr. Joseph Strutt is about to give a fur-
ther proof of his anxious care of the welfare of the
people of Derby, Mr. Loudon, the celebrated writer
en gardening, is actually planting aleven acres of ground,
which Mr. Strutt intends to give as a free gift to the
inhabitants of that town for their recreations.