The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-27 00:00:00

LAW-THIS DAY.

Trinity Term commenced this morning, and in conse-
quence of the judges not breakfasting with the Lord Chan-
cellor, their lordships took their scats in their respective
courts at the usual hour.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron, and Barons Channel],

Bramwell, and Wilde.)
I3ASTITAL V. LLOYD.

Mr. Edward James moved in this case for a rule call-
ing upon the defendant to show cause why the damages
found for the plaintiff of £4 should not be increased to £4O.
The action was brought by the plaintiff for demurrage by
detention of his ship, and was heard before Baron Bram-
well at the last sittings at Guildhall, and the question was
whether the detention of the ship arose from the negligence
of the defendant, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to
demurrage for the whole period of detention or only part.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.
BLOXIM V. TALBOT.

Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., on this cause being called on, made
an application to the Court for the postponement of the
case, which had been ordered to stand on the peremptory
paper, and in which Mr. Sergeant Petersderff had obtained
the rule nisi for a new trial, and the question involved was
relative to a bill of exchange. The learned gentleman said
the difficulty that at present stood in the way was that the
defendant was abroad, and they had been unable to obtain
his affidavit in explanation in time. The delay was occa-
sioned in consequence of the difficulty in finding a commis-
sioner before whom he could be sworn.
The Lord Chief Baron inquired why Mr. Petersdorff was
not present to support his rule.

Mr. Garth said he was with Sergeant Petersdorff, and the
reason of his absence was that it had been understood the
ease should stand over.

The case was then ordered to be struck out of the
peremptory paper.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Before Chief-Justice Erie and Justices Willis, Byles, and

Keating.)

IN THE MATTER OF ITILMHT.
This case was before the court last term, when a motion
was made to strike Mr. Wright, an attorney, off the roll of
the court, on the ground that he had been guilty of fraud
and misconduct in the management of certain pecuniary
matters in which a Miss Thomas was Concerned. The mat-
ter had been referred to the Mastet, and he was of opinion
after hearing the facts, that Mr. Wright should be struck
off the roll, but the matter 'was allowed to stand over till
the present time, in order that Mr. Wright might show
cause against such a proceeding.
Mr. Clark this morning addressed the Court at some
length, and at the conclusion of the learned gentleman's
remarks, their lordships were of opinion that their duty
would be, as the Master had found that an attorney had
been guilty of misconduct and fraud, to adopt the usual
course and confirm the Master's decision, also that he
(Wright) be ordered to pay the costs of Miss Thomas, and
that an attachment issue on the non-payment of those costs,
but the process to remain in the office for a month.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fonblanclue.)
IN RE MITCHELL DE MOWBRAY.-17N.IITYLESITY LI7E.
The bankrupt was described as bate of Jeffery-terrace,
Kentish-town, clerk in holy orders,, and this was a meeting
for last examination and discharge.
The debts amounted to £1,244, due to tradesmen at
Oxford and Grantham, and the property was returned at
19s.

Mr. Hurford (Hurford and Taylor) opposed for the
assignees; Mr. Sargood supported.
The grounds of opposition were that the bankrupt had
incurred debts without probable means of payment, and he
now came to the Court as "De Mowbray," although his
father'd name was Mitchell, and bankrupt was known at
the University by the name of Mitchell, whore he incurred
a large amount of debts and assumed the aristocratic name
of De Mowbray.

The bankrupt, in his examination by Mr. Hurford, said
that he went to Oxford in 1856, and left in December, 1859.
He had an allowance of between £3OO and £4OO a year
from his tether. When he left Oxford he owed about £BOO,
and went direct to his curacy at Burraby on a stipend of
£BO a year, and a reduced allowance from his father. He
had paid some of the Oxford debts off. His balance sheet
included debts for dog-cart, keep of horses, &c., jewellers,
hetelkeepers, and glo'rers, He had kept no account of his.
debts, except by putting the bills as they came in into a
book. He had no private property, but he was educated
from a fund set aside for that purpose under a settlement.
By Mr. Sargood—He had paid a great deal of money
away whilst at Oxford, and property which 'ne ought to
have had had been lost.

His Honour alludod to the general features of the case,
but did not see ground for withholdi'ig the discharge.—
Order accordingly.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
Before Mr, 'Kerr.)
SINGULAR APPLICATION.-- To make the present appli-
cation intelligible, it may br, necessary to premise that it
happens very frequently tJoat though money may be paid
into court by a debtor, the creditor does not claim it. At
stated intervals lists are posted about the premises of the
court-house, with the names of the owners of these "un-
claimed dividends." Mr. Buchanan to-day applied on ba-
half of a poor widow. A long time ago her then husband
received a judgment in this court for 41 10s. 11d., but front
some cause he had not applied to this court for the money.
The widow was now in a state of great distress, and he
(Mr. Buchanan) earnestly entreated the Court to order
the money to be paid to her.
His Honour—lt is a very long time ago.
Mr. Buchanan—Yes.
His Honour—Nearly six years.
Mr. Osgood—l doubt if it is on the Vat now.
Mr. Buchanan—Oh, yes it is, and there are circum-
stances in the case which may induce the Court to act
in a kindly manner by the poor widow. She is very much
in want, and having this knowledge I am certain the Court
will not wish to keep her money any longer.
After some inquiries as to the name and amount being
still upon this list, his Honour said that Mr. Buchanan
might take an order.