The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-07 00:00:00

LAW---THIS DAY.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE FROM PRISON.-IN RE

WEBSWER.

This bankrupt applied fur release from custody, and was
opposed by Mr. England, on behalf of a creditor, on the
ground that the bankrupt had committed a breach of trust
as an executor, by not paying into court a sum of money
which he had received as executor, and had been ordered to
pay into court, and in default of doing so was in contempt.
His Honour—That is not a fraud.
Mr. England—He acknowledges that he has received the
money and has not paid it over.

His Honour—That may be a contempt, but no fraud.
Mr. England—l did not say a fraul, but a breach of trust
in not paying over the money when he receives it or account

for it.

His Honour—Do you mean to say that every executor
who receives money, and does not account for it at the
moment, is guilty of breach of trust.
. _ .

Mr. England—The bankrupt admits he received £194 as
executor of one Norris, in February, 1860, and he asserts
he has made payments to the amount of £94, and that he
holds the remainder, although he has been written to over
and over again to appropriate the money according to the
will.

His Honour—That is to pay certain legacies. Do you
mean to say that the non-payment is a breach of trust? I
do not think it is ? The order for discharge will issue, but
the bankrupt's conduct will be tested on a future occasion.
Order for release granted accordingly.
IN RE G. STIFF-THE MORNING CHRONICLE.

After a long discussion, Mr. Hodge (Spalding and Hodge)
and Mr. Ed ward Hart (of the firm of ll!trt Brothers and
Hayles) were chosen assignees,

Debts, £31,652 ; secured, £26,000 ; property held by cre-
ditor, £61,500; book debts, £5,000. ,

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

TELEGRAPH COMPANIES AND THE rußLic-IMPORTANT
DECISION-LARA V. THE BRITISH AND IRISH MAGNE-

TIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

This was an action to recover damages for delay in the
delivery of a certain telegraphic message and 6d. charge in
excess as postage. _

Plaintiff, who is a professional man, said that he had
to send a message to an old servant. The message was not
delivered in Portsmouth until nearly two o'clo3k, it having
really reached the Portsmouth station by the return of the
officer, at 40 minutes past eleven. Now, the plaintiff com-
plained that this delay was most excessive. The place to
which the message was directed was only about a mile
from the Portsmouth station, and plaintiff could walk the
distance in less than a quarter of an hour. As to the over-
charge of 6d., that had been admitted.
A person who attended for defendants, said that plaintiff
had sued the wrong company, bat the case would be de-
fended upon its merits. The real defendants were the
London District Telegraph Company, whose lines did not
proceed further than London, and this message went
through no less than four companies. If the people would
look at the conditions upon the back of the message paper,
it would be seen that plaintiff was out of court.
His Honour (Mr. Serjeant Wheeler) pointed out to the
plaintiff that the only means of ensuring punctuality was
by ensuring the message, and therefore he could not recover
damages.

Defendants' representative explained the cause of the
delay, by saying that the boy could not find the place ; but
plaintiff entirely contradicted this, and said that as to the
sixpence, defendants had sent a cheque for the amount
upon a station, but it was not a legal tender, and plaintiff
refused it.

His Honour said he thought plaintiff might have taken
it, but there was a little feeling on each side. Plaintiff
would have a verdict for sixpence.

Plaintiff—l should not have taken this step had a proper
apology been made.

CRIMINAL COURT--THIS DAY

OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)

The April session of the Central Criminal Court com-
menced this morning before the Lord Mayor, the Recorder,
the Sheriffs, and other civic authorities.
The calendar contained the names of 124 prisoners for
triaL

The Recorder, in charging the grand jury, said,although
there was a very great number of prisoners for trial,
owing to the long adjournment of the court, there was only
one involving the loss of life, and this was one of rather a
peculiar character. The person accused was a member
of the medical profession, and the offence imputed to him
was the causing the death of a woman whom he
had attended for child birth. It would be for the
grand jury to satisfy themselves whether death was
caused by want of skill and neglect. He explained
them, that of a surgeon, through his gross neglect or un-
skilfulness, caused the death of his patient, he was in law
guilty of manslaughter, It was not, however, to be sup-
posed, that a mistake which he might make would render
him amenable to law; but, if they were satisfied from evi-
dence that would be kid before them that death was caused
by his gross neglect and want of skill, it would be their
duty to find a true bill against the accused. His lordship
then alluded to a charge of forgery and perjury against
a person named Brown, which arose out of a
charge which was tried last session, and the party who
was then charged with forgery now charged the present
person, who was then the prosecutor, with:forging the do-
cument which he was alleged to have forged. These wore

the only cases he thought he need refer to, and with the
usual intimation that the assistance of the court would
be readily :given in ,the event of its being required, his
lordship dismissed the jury from the performance of their
duty.
THE CHARGE OF BIGAMY AGAINST MRS. WILSON.
_ _ _

Mr. Giffard, on the part of Mrs, Barbara Catharine Wil-
son, against whom a charge of marrying Captain Le Hunt
Wilson, her first husband, Jonathan Gotobed, being then
alive, applied for the postponement of the trial of the lady
until the next session, or the session after, on the ground
that owingjto the want of funds she had been unable up to the
present time to procure the necessary witnesses from To-
ronto to prove that at the time of Gotobed's marriage with
her, in 1848, he was then a married man. The learned
gentleman then detailed the facts of the case to his lordship,
which have already appeared in The Sun during the exa-
mination of Wilson at Bow-street police-court.
The Recorder said the trial had already been postponed,
and he should like to know what had been done towards
procuring the attendance of the necessary witnesses to
prove the previous marriage of Jonathan Gotobed.
Mr. Giffard said they had been in communication with

several parties in Canada, but it was very important that
Mrs. Wilson should not disclose the names of the parties
shs wished should be in attendance at her trial, as they
might perhaps be induced not to appear.
The Recorder asked when it was likely the parties would
be in attendance ?

Mr. Giffard was unable to say, but in the event of the
present application being granted, Mrs. Wilson would send
a person to Toronto to obtain the necessary evidence with
the greatest possible expedition.
Mr. Pollock on the part of the prosecution resisted the
application on the ground that since the lady first knew that
an indictment for bigamy was to be preferred against her she
had had ample time to obtain the evidence she required to
prove prior to the marriage of Jonathan Gotobed.
The Recorder wanted to know what had been done since
he postponed the trial on the sth of last March?
Mr. Giffard said there was no affidavit.

The Recorder observed that since March it appeared to
him nothing had been done, although it had been stated
that if the application was then granted a person would be
at once despatched to Toronto to obtain the necessary evi-
dence. He would carefully look over the affidavits that
had now been put in, and give the answer to the application
to-morrow.