The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON', MONDAY EVENING, MARCH 17, 1862.

TILLS DAY'S MARKETS.

to 2s 3d; second, is 8d to 2s ld; handwashed, is 20;
lamb, is 10d; locks and pieces, is lid to is 6d. Victoria
—Clean sheep's, is 6d to 2s 31d ; super, 2s 4id to 2s 7d ;
secend, is Bid to 2s 7d; lamb, is Mid to 2s Bd. Tasmanian
—Clean sheep's, is 9d. South Australian—Skin scoured,
is 31d ; do. handwashed, is 4id ; lamb, scoured, is 61d;
grease, 9id to is ; do. locks, 6d to 6jd. Cape—Clean
sheep's, is ld to is 10Id; scoured, is lid to is 9id ; hand-
washed, 91d to is 3 d ; lamb, is ld to is 5d ; skin, 9id to
is 9d ; grease, 8d to is 2d per lb Privately the English
wool trade is dull, at late rates. Last week's imports were
3,993 bales from Melbourne; 6,582, Geelong; 2,068, Port
Augusta; 1,370, Sydney; and 659 from Table Bay.

—s Od -s Od
1858. 1859. 1860. 1861. 1862.
-
Stock this day.... 152,03 ' 17,035 34,707 71,795 43.325
5580 i to's2s 9d to 58s0d to 60s0d to 469 6d to
Delivery last week 1s 58 1,287 1,002 717 1,949
--s Od —s 6d Os Od
Ditto from June 1 91,539 86,060 68,920 76,949 102,032
Arrivals last week 298 31 834 665 1,625
Price of Y.C. .. ?
Ditto from June 1 95.029 91,528 91,516 11',620 88,596
Price of Town -• • • 56s 6d 59s 3d 58s Od 58s 9d 48s 6d

LAW IIV TELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Item)
LEVEY AND OTHERS T. THOMAS.-COMI'OSITORS'
COMPANIONSHIPS.-IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

The plaintiffs in this case are master printers, and the
defendant was the "clicker" of a companionship of com-
positors in their employ. He was not selected by the com-
panionship to represent them in their dealings with the
employers, but appointed by the plaintiffs as clicker, being
paid ss. per week above his earnings as a compositor. The
action was brought to recover certain moneys alleged to
have been overpaid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, and
to recover an amount paid by the plaintiffs for certain work
alleged to have been left unfinished by the defendant.
The case having been referred, the arbitrator delivered
the following important judgment, read to-day by NITA:Corr :
" It is found by the arbitrator that the plaintiffs' claim
arises—lst, for that defendant ' overcharged certain work
pretended to have been completed by the defendant and his
companions;' 2dly, for that plaintiffs 'expended certain
sums of money in the completion of certain other work left
unfinished by the defendant and his companions ;' and 3dly,
for that the defendant, on behalf of himself and his com-
panions, misrepresented to the plaintiffs that they had per-
formed a certain amount of work.' The arbitrator further
finds that in the books kept by the plaintiffs there is on
one side debited to the companionship the sums of money
drawn by the defendant and his companions, and on the
other side the apportionment of the said several sums so
debited among the companions, the name of each workman
being separately entered aleng with the sum p,id to him as
his share of the work."

The claim of the plaintiffs, as stated to and found by the
arbitrator, is in respect of "work charged for by the de-
fendant in his character as clicker, and for finishing the
work left by him and his companionship undone." The
word "undone" seems to govern the first part of the phrase
as well as the last. The plaintiffs then do not sue the de-
fendant as being personally liable for damages arising from
his neglect of duty as a clicker, nor do they seek to recover
from him monies, obtained by him individually by means of
representations which he knew, or ought to have
known, to be incorrect. Their claim is founded exclu-
sively upon contract, and the defendant is sued
as one of several joint contractors, and as such
liable for the whole amount overpaid to the companionship
of which he was one, or paid to complete work unfinished by
them, but for which they had received the price. The
plaintiffs, in order to recover, must, therefore, make out
that the defendant and his companions were joint con-
tractors, but this, in my opinion, they have failed to do.
Had the defendant, as clicker, charged and received a gross
sum for the work alleged to be done, the companionship
might probably, irrespective of his appointment by the
plaintiffs, be considered a body of joint contractors. But the
arbitrator has found that the monies they have received
were claimed by and paid to them individually, and
so entered in the plaintiff's books, the defendant,
no doubt, receiving, as clicker, the gross amount due
to the companionship, but only as an agent, and in this
case it is to be inferred as an agent of the plaintiffs, by
whom he was appointed and paid extra for the performance
of the clicker's duties. The plaintiffs have therefore failed
to make out their case ; but as they are entitled on the arbi -
trator's findings to sue the defendant for his share or con-
tribution towards the sums overpaid by them to the com-
panionship, and possibly also for damages for neglect of
duty; and as a verdict for the defendant here would be a
bar to their recording in another action,the judgment of the
Court is that the plaintiffs be nonsuited.—Nonsuited ac-
cordingly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
/lIDGMENT.-IN RE SITIER.

This bankrupt was descriped as of Hyde, Isle of Wight,
hotel keeper, and his Honour now gave judgment on the
question of discharge. The bankrupt was opposed on the
ground of rash and reckless trading, trading with fictitious
capital, and omitting to keep proper books of account.
The first charges were grounded on the fact that the bank-
rupt had given 'a bill of sale over the whole of his property,
yet continued trading and contracting debts to the extent
of £9OO, and the only property was a good debt
of £l. He (his Honour) considered that this course
of trading with a fictitious capital—for the bank-
rupt had none—when there was a bill of sale
in the cupboard which might have been brought out at any
moment and swept everything away—the trading was not
only rash and reckless, but he could not conceive anything
more fraudulent. The official assignee reported that the
bankrupt had only given up a few books and receipts insuf-
ficient to verify the accounts. The bankrupt had unques-
tionably acted very fraudulently, but the case did not come
within the last act as a misdemeanour, but 'the bankrupt
had been guilty of fraud for which he might be indicted at
Common Law, but he had no power under the act to direct
a prosecution or grant costs—but if indicted and convicted
he would be subjected to penal servitude—the question was
what could be done with a man who had acted in the manner
the bankrupt had done.
His Honour would refuse to grant the discharge, and he
should do so for a considerable period. There was also a
power to sentence a bankrupt to 12 months' imprisonment,
but it was not quite clear in this case, and he would rather
take that which was, and refuse the discharge for 12 months
without protection.
Mr. Sargood applied for protection for 30 days to allow
the bankrupt to appeal.
His Honour said he would not grant any protection; he
did not do so in a case of a B. A. certificate being applied
for; he only directed that it should not issue for a certain
period. In this case any creditor who held judgments, and
had not come in under the bankruptcy, or obtained
judgment on writs issued, might take the bankrupt in
execution.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

BOW-STREET,

ASSAULTING A RIFLEMAN.—Two young men named
John and Frederick Skinner, were charged with assaulting
John Allen.

The complainant said he was proceeding along one of the
streets in the neighbourhood of the court on Saturday even.
ing, when tho two prisoners came up to a gentleman
named Lockhart, and, after a short altercation, commenced
showing fight. He tried to prevent a disturbance, when
Frederick Skinner struck him in the mouth, and John
Skinner also gave him a blow in the eye.
Mr. Lockhart said he was acquainted with the prisoners,
but, as one of them met him on Saturday in a state of in-
toxication, he refused to speak to him, and hence the
disturbance.

A young woman also confirmed the evidence as to both
prisoners striking Mr. Allen.
The Magistrate fined both prisoners 20s.
STEALING A COAT.—John Conner, an Irishman, was
charged with receiving a coat well knowing it to be stolen.
Mr. Isaacs, a clothier, residing in the Strand, said the
prisoner and a female came into the shop to purchase a
coat. There was not one that would fit, and as they were
leaving the shop ho saw the woman had secreted a coat
underneath her shawl. He followed them out of the shop,
and saw the woman, when they arrived at Clement's-inn,
take the coat from under her shawl and put it on the pri•
goner. They then went into a public-house, and he (the
prosecutor) having met a constable they both went in to
take the man and woman into custody. The woman ran
out of the side door and escaped. The man was secured
with the coat on his person.
Mr. Corrie asked what he had to say to the charge ?
Conner said he did not steal the coat. He had been bu
three weeks from Ireland, and the woman had picked him
up in the street.
He was fully committed for trial.
Two labouring men, named John Mansfield and John
Brennan, were charged with assault.
Police-constable 83 F said the prosecutor was suffering
from a broken arm and some very severe internal injury.
He was at present in the hospital and unable to attend.