The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER', 22, 1839.

COMMON PLEAS' Nor. 21.

In consequence of the absence (from illness we un-
derstand) of Mr. Justice Coltman, and the engage-
ment of Mr. Justice Erskine, at Guildhall,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the case of Small
v. Attwood, which was appointed for today, had better
be put off till next term, as it was not possible to have a
full Court this term, seeing that Mr. Justice Maule had
been Counsel in the case,

STORY V. RICHARDSON.

The arguments in this case occupied the greater part
of the day. An action had been brought by one mem-
ber of a firm, consisting of three partners, against the
defendant, an accountant, who had been retained by
them to adjust their accounts, for a mistake, through ne-
gligence hi making up the accounts, by which mistake he
(the plaintiff) bad been damaged in some thousands
of pounds. At the trial Sir F. Pollock, for the de-
fendant, raised an objection that the retainer had been
by the three partners jointly, whereas the declarations
stated that the contract was with the plaintiff only. The
verdict was, by consent, taken for the plaintiff reserv-
ing this point, which was now argued.
For the plaintiff, Mr. Sergeant WILDE (with whom
were Mr. Crowder and Mr. Noggins) contended that
the action could not be laid for the three partners, seeing
that the injury was sustained solely by the plaintiff, and
that the other two had benefited by the error of de-
fendant. If, therefore, these two must be parties to the
action redress would never be obtained, as they would
doubtless not quarrel with a mistake by which they had
profited.
Sir F. POLLOCK (with Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and
Mr. V. Lee) for the defendant, supported the objection,
urging that the duty of the plaintiff, when considered as
retained by all three partners, would be quite different
from his duty when considered as being retained only by
one. In the first case he ought to give each person their
just and fair proportion. In the latter case he would
naturally seek to make as large a balance as possible for
his employer. In the one ease he would be a referee—
in the other, a partizan. Now here the contract was
joint, and it should have been stated so in the declaration.
The COURT held that the objection bad no weight,
for that the joint retainer did not exclude a separate
duty, that the duty to all included the duty to each, the
breach of which was actionable.

BAIL COURT, Nor. 2; .
THE QUEEN V. GRIFFITH.-CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Mr. CRESWELL moved for a rule to show cause why
a criminal information should not be filed against Mr.
Griffith, the printer, proprietor, and publisher of the
Wigan Gazette, for a libel upon Richard Fegan, Esq.,
a Magistrate of that borough. It appeared from the
affidavits that the defendant was in the habit of speak-
ing of Mr. Fegan as King Fegan, and of another indi-
vidual as Robinhood Greenough, and that at the end
of September he promised to give a history of
these two " Radical Justices," on a future
occasion. Mr. Fegan stated that at the tine
when the municipal lists were under revision, an indi-
vidual swore to facts which he (Mr. Fegan) had
reason to believe were untrue ; and that on a subse-
quent day a person proved the evidence given by the
individual alluded to to have been false, on which Mr.
Fegan said he thought it became him as a Magistrate
to express his sense of the impropriety of the conduct
of the person who had committed the perjury. In the
next paper p,ublished by Mr. Griffith the following ar-
ticle appeared :
"We perceive that our very esteemed friend,
Richard Fegan, Esq., formerly dealer in eggs, herrings,
potatoes, and matches, on Monday, in the Court for
revising the Municipal List, expressed his great horror
at the crime of perjury, and stated that it was the duty
of all persons, and as a Magistrate he for one could not
help setting his face against it. It is said that lovers
are sometimes in the habit of swearing eternal fidelity,
and so on ; now, we have a little curiosity on
this point, and should wonderfully like to be
informed whether a Mr. King, who said certain
things to a lady at Manchester made any such
vows as those we have alluded to, and whether the very
respectable Magistrate Mr. Fegan, had then the same
horror of the same crime ? And further, if these
pledgei given by a man already married ware not given
with the full knowledge that that they never would be
redeemed ?"

This was an imputation on Mr. regan of a
very gross description, and he stated that the insinu-
tion respecting a lady at Manchester, was utterly with-
out foundation. If such statements were allowed to
circulate in Wigan with impunity, Mr. Fegan could
never have that authority which he ought to maintain.
His LORDSHIP granted a rule to show cause.
THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR OF KING'S LYNN.
_ .

In this case a rule was granted a few days ago calling
upon the Mayor of Lynn to show cause why he had
refused to insert the name of Mr. James Bowker on the
burgess roll of the borough. The question turned en-
tirely on the legality of the rate.

Mr. KELLY said the Mayor submitted entirely to the
pleasure of the Court, merely wishing for its direction
in the matter, and

His LORDSHIP made the rule absolute, in order that
a return might be made, and the point fully discussed.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nor. 21.
CHAMBERS BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HoLRoYD.)
A meeting of the creditors of Mr. Chambers was
held this day, in Basinghall-street, for the purpose of
appointing assignees in the room of those deceased. A
considerable portion of time was consumed in objections
made, and discussions upon those objections, to the
right of certain persons, representatives of deceased
creditors, vestry clerks of parishes, &c., to vote.
The Learned COMMISSIONER was of of opinion that
any person who stood in the situation of an actual cre-
ditor had a right to vote for assignees.
A very angry and violent discussion then took place
upon a statement made by Mr. Hamilton, that powers
of attorney had been issued by certain parties, which
he characterised as a very ingenious trick to neutralise
the votes of bona fide creditors.
Mr. Williams claimed to vote i❑ the choice of assig-
nees on behalf of Signor De Begnis, from whom he had
a power of attorney to act generally in all his affairs in
this country during his absence.
Mr. Arnold, on the behalf of Messrs. Mayhew and
Johnson, objected to the claim, on the ground that a
power of attorney of so general a character would not
give a right to vote in the choice of assignees.
Mr. Dixon submitted that Mr. Williams was entitled
to vote. He considered the proposition of his Learned
Friend Mr. Arnold contrary to all the provisions of the
Bankrupt Act, and contrary to common sense.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD felt satisfied in his own
mind that the power given by Signor De Begnis to Mr.
Williams was insufficient to enable him to vote in the
choice of assignees. He would, however, consult with
some of his brother Commissioners on the subject.—
(The Learned Gentleman then left the Court for that
purpose, and after being ahs9nt for nearly an hour, on
his return stated, that Mr. Commissioner Merivale and
Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque differing from him as to
the sufficiency of the authority, although he still enter-
tcrtained his own impression, he would admit the right
to vote.

The right of three gentlemen on behalf of the parish
of St. George, Hanover-square, to vote in the choice of
assignees, was admitted after a short discussion.
Mr. Johnson, after a considerable pause, said he sup-
posed that Mr. Hamilton would now put in his list of
voters for the choice of certain assignees.
Mr. Hamilton said that it was not his intention to
put in any list until the opposite party had put in theirs.
Mr. Johnson said lie had no list to out in at present.
The parties he appeared tor were quite satisfied with
things as they were.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. Hamilton said if no other list was offered he
had one to put in, but he was not going to put in that
list unless it was understood that the other side had
closed their case.
Mr. Wright wished to know who Mr. Johnson ap-
peared for. If he appeared for any one, he trusted he
would not keep him in his pocket.—(A laugh.) Why
did he not state to the meeting boldly who he appeared
for ?—(Cheers.) Did he appear for the assignees ?
Mr. Johnson said he did not ; he appeared for Mr.
Frederick Robertson, and if Mr. Hamilton was waiting
for him to bring forward a list, he could tell him he
was not
nt
etdoi
yd opuso t at present.
him
as
to
whom he a
As the question
p
had been so poi
peared for, he thought he was entitled to ask Mr-
Hamilton the same question.
Mr. Hamilton appeared for a great body of the cre-
ditors, and among them, for Mr. London, the represen-
tative of Mrs. Farmer.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD wished to know whether
there was one or two lists to he proposed, because if
there was only one there would he no necessity for ad-
journing the meeting ; if there acre two, perhaps the
better course would be to adjourn till to-morrow. In
his opinion, if the latter was the case, it was immaterial
which list was put in first, as he should take care that
no injury was done to either party.
Mr. Hamilton said it was useless for paities to hide
the fact from the Commissioners that there were two
lists, but the gentlemen on the other side wished him to
complete his list before theirs ; that he did not consider
himself justified in n
doing,
objection ing,
jebnutitanaltlotihtsatbehinez
wanted
understood
fair play. He
that the lists were now closed, and would take the
was
chance of the result ; but he objected now to hand in his
list, leaving it to the other side to open the matter the

next day they met, by producing new powers of attorney.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said that if all parties
had signed who wished to do so, the lists ought to be
put in, when they would be examined by the officer of
the Court, who would decide as to which party had the
most votes.
Mr. Wright said the fact was, that the parties on the
other side were lying by till the time when the Com-
missioner was called upon to sign the list.
Mr. Johnson—The fact is, we are satisfied with
things as they are, and desire no change.
Mr. Dixon—No doubt you are, and have been so
for a long time.
Mr. Johnson considered such observations uncalled •
for from the Learned Gentleman.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD—This appears to be
what it ought not to be, a contest between two solici-
tors. All the solicitors have to do is, if they have powers
of attorney to vote, to put them in on each side, and
then it will be for the officer of the Court to see who has
the most votes.
Mr. Johnson—We consider a new choice of assig-
nees an evil, and therefore we don't wish to adopt it,
unless that proposition is brought forward from another
quarter.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD—You are not to state
what you wish ; all you have to do is to hand in your
lists on each side, leaving it to the officer of the Court
to decide.
Mr. Johnson—Our difficulty is, that we doubt whe-
ther there will be a list from the other side.
After some further discussion it was decided that
both parties should still be at liberty to put in any war-
rants of attorney they had, and object to any other par-
ties who claimed to vote, and the meeting was adjourned
to Thursday next for that purpose.
Mr. Tooke, late M.P. for Truro, attended on behalf
of General Reynardson and Mr. Birch, the Chief Clerk
of the House of Lords, who were creditors to the ex•
tent of 10,0004

SHERIFFS COURT, Nor. 21.
BERRY V. PENTON.

The plaintiff in this case is an eating-housekeeper in
the Minorite, and the defendant a farmer residing at
Ilford. The action was brought to recover a balance of
account due by the defendant for hogs' wash, to which
the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations.
On the part of the plaintiff his son proved that the
defendant had deliveredgoods to the plaintiff on account
as late as January 1834 ; and a servant of the plaintiff
proved the payment of a sovereign on account, at the
same period.

For the defendant it was contended that these trans-
actions took place in 1832, since which time there had
been no acknowledgment of the debt.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for a ba.
lance of 3/. 12s. l Id.

SPRIGG V. CRAWLEY.

The plaintiff in this case is an attorney residing in
Judd-place, and the defendant a grocer, residing in
Judd-street, and the action was brought to recover
71. 3s. 10d. for work and labour done.

Mr. FISH appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. PREN-
DERGAST for the defendant.
Mr. FISH stated that the defendant had been em-
ployed by the plaintiff to issue a writ of capias against
a man named Jenkins in 1838, which writ became abor-
tive in consequence of the abolition of imprisonment
for debt. The cost of the capias was liquidated
by the plaintiff, who had given a written retainer
to the plaintiff to issue it. The plaintiff waited on
the defendant and explained to him the nature
of what occurred, and received his further
instructions, in consequence of which summons and dis-
triages had issued. The plaintiff had not had the bill
taxed, but had applied to the Judge to stay proceedings,
and therefore he supposed the defence would be that his
client had not been employed.
W. C. Gates, a clerk in the employ of the plaintiff,
deposed to the transactions mentioned by the Learned
Counsel in his opening, and stated that he was present
when certain letters were read to defendant from Mr.
Story, of St. Alban's, relating to the case.
Cross-examined—Knows defendant and his wife have
both sworn affidavits contradicting his testimony.
The witness was cross-examined, and after some re-
marks by the Counsel on both sides,
Mr. BURCIIELL summed up, and the jury returned a
a verdict for the defendant.

WESTMINSTER COURT OF RE-

QUESTS.

AN IRISH FRUIT MIRCHANT.—A raw-boned, po-
tatoe-faced Munster boy, mounted the rostrum in
this Court, and, with a brogue rivalling that of
a celebrated Tipperary orator, detailed the circum-
stances which had induced him to apply to the Com-
missioners for an award of 4s. 6d. against a Covent-
garden commission salesman.

" I wint, yer banners," said the plaintiff, " to the
Garden wid me market money for a bishol ov hopples.
Ho mitch,' says I, misther, for these here Ribstones ?'
Four and shixpence, Paddy,' sa3s he. Fruppenee is
me money,' says I. They're yours,' says he, so down
wid the brads, and lave eightpince on the basket. Do
you warrant thim,' says I, tap and bottom ?" Does a
pig squake ?' says he. So I pays him the money, and
takes the hopples ; but och ! my, whin I turned 'em
out, Here's robbery on a poor man,' says one ; Here's
murther on an Irishman,' said another ; for by me own
oath all but the tap was rotten and speckt, and not
worth a hapenny a bishol. I axed the salesman
won't he give me back my money, but he treatens to
kick (what I won't mintion) if I did not be ail'. Thin,
plaso yer banners, I leaves the hopples and come here
for justice, which I hopes I'll get, though I'm only a
poor Irishman.

Commissioner—What has your being Irish to do
with the matter ? All we want to get at is the truth.
Has the defendant any proof that the apples he sold
were sound, according to the warrant?
Defendant—The apples were sold in the regular
way, and when the plaintiff complained of them I
offered to give him sixpence rather than have any bother.
Now this man is a very troublesome character ; he
went and got drunk, and came and kicked up a row, and
both himself and his brother and sister got into trouble.
A Commissioner—Mr. Chairman, I do not see what
this statement has to do with the case.

Another Commissioner opposite—Mr. Chairman, this
interruption is uncalled for. The defendant was telling
his story ; we sit here as commissioners to hear peo-
ple's stories. Now, I put it to you, gentlemen, whether
we ought not to hear both sides before we decide.
Third Commissioner (with solemnity)—Certainly,
oh, certainly. As a general principle, I do think be-
fore we give our decision we ought to hear the case.
The Chairman, who evidently wished to conciliate
both sides, said the defendant only travelled a little way
out of the record.

First Commissioner—The shortest way to put a stop
J
can
suspect
prove
ttho
eh
apples
sp
rf:luerst hweerr travelsr
oiNtti In') ewthoi
cahs k
the basket had undergone the process of " topping."
hle'imsoilfd.he
We often have such cases here.
Chairman—Why did you not return the man's money
when he brought back the apples?
Defendant—We could not carry on business if we
made that a regular practice.
Chairman—The Court is of opinion that you must
pay this poor man his money back again, together with
all the expenses immediately.
The salesman looked very blank. The fruit mer-
chant began to utter a string of benedictions, but he
was cut short by the officer desiring him to "hold his
blarney," and come at the appointed time for his money.

DEPLORABLE CASE OF DESTITUTION.—
On Wednesday an inquiry took place before Mr. Car-
ter, the Coroner for Surrey, atthe Fountain, Lambeth-
walk, on the body of Elizabeth Wright, aged 35. A
suspicion had been excited that poison had been given
to her, and the Coroner ordered a'post marten: examina-
tion of the body. It appeared that the deceased went
into Kent with her husband for the purpose of " hop-
ping," where she caught a severe cold. On Sun-
day she complained of being very ill, and
lay down upon an old piece of bed-ticking,
almost the only thing in the miserable room, and in her
day (her only) clothes. She got worse, complained of
dreadful pains in her stomach, lungs, and head, and per-
spired profusely. Her husband lifted her up, but she
soon afterwards died in his arms. Mr. Wagstaff, the
parish surgeon, said that, to a certain extent, the death
was natural though violent. He found the vessels of
the heart and lungs in a state of congestion. But the
immediate cause of death was the manner in which the
deceased had been lying, almost on the floor. The
Jury returned a verdict of " Natural Death." The
Coroner, having ascertained that the husband, an in-
dustrious and sober man, had had no food for sometime,
and possessed not a farthing to get any, gave him 2s. Gd.
The Ju y also subscribed Is. each. This little fortune
came so
unexpectedly upon the poor fellow that when
he left the room he burst into tears.
EQUIVOCAL GENERATION.—ZOOLOGICAL
SOCIETY.-At the ordinary scientific meeting, on Tues-
day evening, F. Wishaw,
Esq., in the Chair, the first
communication read was a letter from Mr. Mackay, of
the British Consulate at INlaracaibo, on a plant called
Protojoy in the country from which it is derived, and
which attains the condition of a plant from the strange
metamorphose of an insect. In the insect, which was
described, some of the legs have already changed into
roots, and in this state it was presented to the contri-
butor. It was announced that a similar insect had lately
been discovered in North Carolina. When the creature
assumes the form of an insect or animal, it is about an 1
inch in length, and much resembles a wasp in appearance.
When the insect has attained its full length, it disap-
pears under the surface of the ground and dies, soon
after which, the two fore-legs begin to sprout and vege-
tate, the shoots extending upwards, and the plants in a
short time reaching a height of six inches. The branches
and the leaves are like trefoil, and at the extremities of
the former there are buds which contain neither leaves
nor flowers, but an insect, which as it grows falls to the
ground or remains on its parent plant, feeding on the
leaves till the plant is exhausted, when the insect re-
turns to the earth and the plant roots forth again.—
Dionfrics Courier.

The witness Love produced a quantity of bed-cur-
tains, plate, blankets, sheets, decanters, and other pro-
perty, which he said had been pledged by the prisoner
previous to his employer being proprietor of the busi-
ness, which was only a few months past.
Mr. TWYFORD asked the witness if he had never
taken in any of the property belonging to Mr. Stam-
mers from the prisoner ? Witness said that he had not ;
but it was pawned during the time of Mr. Sowerby, the
late proprietor, who would attend on the next examina-
tion, and that he (witness) had renewed it for her in
September last.
The servant girl, who found the 36 dupticates, pro-
duced them, and it appeared that the property had all

been pledged in the name of " Ann Parker, Maiden-
lane."

The prisoner declined making, any defence, and she
was ordered to be fully committed on the charge of arson,
and to be remanded for the robberies.

HATTON-GARDEN.

Yesterday Mr. Sharpe, of the firm of Smith and
Sharpe, proprietors of a coke wharf, Macclesfield-street,
City-road, was summoned before Mr. Greenwood, under
the 14th of George the 3d, to show cause why he
refused to pay the rewards to Brown, the engine-
keeper of Islington, and a turreock for their attend-
ance at a chimney on fire.

Mr. GREENWOOD, addressing Mr, Mallett, the
clerk, said that he had been informed by nume-
rous friends that, in cases where parties claimed
rewards for their attendance at fires, the most
infamous frauds were practised, and he had been put
upon his guard to pay strict attention, and thoroughly
investigate such cases before he made an order
for payment, and he had formed a determination
not to examine any witnesses who were interested, or
who had to receive any part of such rewards, and such
proceeding was a gross irregularity, as would never
be satisfactory to him.
Mr. Mallett said that, according to the Act of Par-
liament, he was afraid the Bench could not dispense
with such evidence ; it ought to be received as a matter
of necessity.
Mr. GREENWOOD—I can only say that I will not
receive such evidence ; they must produce disinterested
witnesses to satisfy me. He refused to swear Brown or
the turncock, who were to receive the rewards.
Brown stated, however, that on Saturday evening
last he was called to a chimney on fire at the Coke
Wharf, of the defendant's firm, and he proceeded
thither with his engine.
Stanwell, a street-keeper, was now called.
In answer to a question, he said he was to receive no
portion of the reward, and then stated that on Saturday
night last he saw a flame issue from a chimney connected
with the coke ovens of the defendant's wharf.
Mr. GREENWOOD said that he would not interfere, and
refusing to make out the order, he dismissed the case,
saying that at Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and other
manufacturing towns, it was quite common to see chins-
nies with a flame at such manufactories without danger.