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

LAW IA T.ELLIG.ENCE.—(This Day.)

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
LEVEY AND OTHERS Y. THOMAS.-COMPOSITORS'
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 58. 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 \ ir.lierr :
" 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 idly,
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 along with the sum paid 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, end 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. Tho 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.)
JUDGMENT.—IN RE SIVIER.
This bankrupt was descriped as of Ryde, 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 nor 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 ho
should do so for a considerable period. There was also a
power to sentence a hankrnnt fn 19
but it was not quite clear in this case, and he would ra;h,r
take that whichwas, and refuse the discharge for 12 me.iths
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,

ASSATTLTING 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 the 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 COAL—John Conner, an Irishman, was
charged with receiving a coat well knzwing 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 he 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 pn•
Boner. They then went into a publio-house, and he (the
prosecutor) having met a constable they both went in to
take the man and woman into custody. The woman ran
: The man was secured
out doendhoiosr
panersdone.se_aped_

!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.
The magistrate remanded both prisoners for a week.
SHAMEFUL CRUELTY.—COMMITTAL WITHOUT it. FINE.
—William Chalk, a carman, was charged before Mr. Tyr-
whitt with cruelty to a horse, the proceedings being insti-
tuted at the instance of Mr. William Love, chief officer of
the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Rutherford, one of the Society's officers, proved seeing
the prisoner driving a miserable mare in a cart on Saturday
afternoon, in the Tottenham-court-road. On removing
some of the harness he found a large open wound on its
backbone; the wound being 41 inches long, and having a
hole in the centre. Under the collar there were five
different wounds, and about the teats there was a mass of
sores. The prisoner said he had brought the horse from
Hertfordshire. Some of the sores were of old standing.
The horse was brought to the front of the Court, and a
more pitiable spectacle has seldom been seen. The little
animal's back was a mass of corruption ; and
there is
doubt that, but for the society's officer bringing the
mat-
ter before the Court, the prisoner would have allowed it
to die in the streets.
it
not
th e prisoner
said l‘r
ifiT
ther horsewhi was destroyed
fresho 14p y r
odcaees and
d, i
ngs
r
would be taken against him when he camefrom prison.
Thomas Chalk, father of the last prisoner, was fined
55., or seven days, for also working his horse in an unfit
state, the case being also prosecuted by the Royal Society,