The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 23, 1%5.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioiler Holroyd.)
IN RE SIR J. J. R. MACKENZIE, BART.

This matter has been before the Court upon a great many
occasions, and to-day the bankrupt applied for his order of
discharge, the figures being very heavy, the debts and liabi-
lities being put at £195,000, and the assets depending upon
the realisation of certain estates in the country which had
been mortgaged to the late Earl Fitzwilliam and other
creditors. Upon the last occasion the bankrupt was al-
lowed to pass by his Honour, against whose decision an
appeal has been lodged by the assignees in the Court of
Chancery.
Mr. Sargood, for the assignees, said that it would be
seen that the assets had beeri very greatly over-estimated,
and instead of being in surplus of the debts were in a
large deficit. It was very desirable that the accounts
should be put straight, and certainly Sir James.should not
have been allowed to pass until this had been done.
Mr. Lawrence, for the bankrupt, urged that an appeal
upon a pure question of account would bo extremely un-
desirable, and therefore Sir James would consent to award
the costs. _ _

___
Mr. Sargood intimated that if the accounts were amended
the appeal would be withdrawn. There were, however,
certain matters which must be inquired into, and therefore
an adjournment must be ordered.
t After some ge eral discussion another adjournment was
ordered, it bein , understood that if certain amendments
were made tilesappeal would be withdrawn.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
ABRAHAM V. BARTLETT AND ANOTHER.

This was an action to recover £28155., money advanced
to defendants, and £5 17s. goods supplied, defendants
pleading that the goods for which the money was advanced
hai been destroyed by fire.
_ _ .

- -
Mr. Lewis, senior, appeared for the plaintiff, who is a
furniture dealer, Mr. Baard representing defendants, who
are furniture manufacturers.

Mr. Lewis, in opening the case, stated that his client had
employed defendants to make a parcel of furniture, and
defendants required some money on account. Upon this
plaintiff advanced a sum now claimed, and he (Mr. Lewis)
could not understand how the claim could be disputed,
though he understood that a very novel defence had been
set up. Defendants now said that there had, been
a fire on the premises, and the goods for which
this money had been paid were destroyed by it.
Mr. Lewis contended that plaintiff could not be
at all affected by this fire, as the goods which defendants
were to have made were not completed at the time it
happened.

Mr. Beard on behalf of defendants took a technical objec-
tion to the jurisdiction of the Court, which was overruled.
Some discussion then ensued as to the question of ac-
count between the parties, and Mr. Lewis endeavoured to
show that defendants had not even commenced to manu-
facture the furniture, which was obliged to have been
destroyed, and that the money now sued for had been paid
to the use of the defendants.

His Honour thought this would resolve itself into a pure
question of account, because if defendants had made one
chair, the form of action would not lie.
Mr. Lewis said he would prove that nothing had been
done.

Mr. Beard produced a number of invoices, and that the
money paid had been actually handed over in payment for
goods which were finished when the fire took place, and
thus the property was vested in plaintiff, who must also
bear the loss.

His Honour thought this was a matter which might well
be referred to the registrar of the Lord Mayor's Court, as
he could go into all the facts. Leave will be given to the
plaintiff to amend his particulars of demand, and to de-
fendants to amend their pleas.
Referred.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.--This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF CREATING A DISTURBANCE
AT THE PRINCESS'S THEATRE.—Mr. John Griffiths, coach-
maker, of 27, High Wakefield, was charged before Mr.
Mansfield with creating a disturbance during the per-
formance at the Princess's Theatre, and refusing to leave
his seat when requested to do so by the lessee of the
theatre.

Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, ap
pealed for the defendant.