The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-19 00:00:00

LAW-THIS DAY.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.
IN RE BRAUN AND RORTSOKE.-JUDGMENT.
His Honour gave judgment this morning on the question
of last examination. The bankrupts were described as of
London-wall, bat and cap manufacturers, and originally
presented a petition under the private arrangement act, in
September, 1861, at which time the debts and liabilities
were stated by Messrs. Hart Brothers and Hayles at about
£46,000, but the proceedings were ultimately brought into
open court, much delay having been occasioned by Mr.
Kortsoke being at Montreal to realise the property.
His Honour in the first instance referred to the fact of
the elaborate examinations, and considered that a great
portion was wide of the mark, incurring a large expense
which he was afraid would absorb nearly all the estate at
present in hand, and there would be nothing for the credi-
tors. It strongly impressed upon his mind the necessity of
watching these examinations day by day, and not to permit
them to proceed unnecessarily. It now became necessary
to employ shorthand writers, and the result was there had
been great cost. His Honour passed the examination
(under the old Act), and said that he could not see any ad•
vantage to the creditors by adjournment, He then referred
to a remark made by Mr. Lawrence as to the c'sts in the
events of an appeal to the Lords J ustices, which, if made,
would put the bankrupts to the expense of £5OO for copies
and " briefing" the examinations. Another reason why he
did not adjourn the examination sine die was that if he did
so he could not separate the bankrupts, whereas he thought
there was a great distinction, which would be made on the
hearing. of the certificate.

The bankrupts, therefore, passed their examination.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Sergeant "Wheeler.)

SINGULAR CASE OF A WITNESS REFUSING TO " TAME
TIDE OATH."-POCOCK V. LONG.
This was an action to recover for some goods alleged to
have been supplied to the defendant.
Defendant sent his wife to answer the claim, and a
portly, elderly Irishwoman got into the box.
His Hlnour (Mr.SergeantWheeler)—Does your husband
owe this money ?
Witness—Not all of it.

His Honour—You must be sworn.
Mr. Overall (one of the bailiffs) was proceeding to swear
the witness, when she seized the book and kissed it.
His Honour—No ; that will not do. You must be pro.
perly sworn.
Mr. Overall repeated the words of the oath:
Witness—No ; I won't swear to that.
His Honour—Then I shall find for the plaintiff.
Witness—Witness—Very well; I'll see what I can do.
Again she took up the book, and again did the bailiff
repeat the oath.

Witness-7 do not mind kissing the book, but 1 cannot
bind myself by such an oath, as it is impossible after all this
time to keep to it.

His Honour—Then I must find for the plaintiff.
THE POWERS OF THE CITY OF LONDON -IMPORTANT DE

CISION.-HULET V. REYNOLDS.

This was an action against an attorney having some
chambirs in Staples• inn, Holborn.
Mr. Buchanan objected to the jurisdiction of this court.
Defendant's chambers were not in the City, and to prove it,
it would be shown that the metropolitan police walked in
part of the premises.

Mr. Smith, for the plaintiff, said that the map was referred
to when the summons was issued, and the process clerk
said that the inn was in the jurisdiction of this court.
Mr. Grant (the process clerk, and an authority in such
matters), was called up, and said that Nos. 1,2, 3, and 4
were within the jurisdiction of the City of London, and
that gave the City power over the whole inn.
His Honour—l must hold that this court has jurisdiction.
Mr. Buchanan—After Mr. Grant's explanation, which,
knowing his great experience, I willingly accept, I will no
longer object. I may say, on the part of the defendant, that
the money was tendered some time since.
His Honour found for the plaintiff, giving defendant an
extra fortnight to pay.