The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. 5.
Sittings in Banco.
cliefore Lord Campbell and Justices Coleridge, Wight-
man, and Erie.)
LEFEVRE V. LANCASTER.-DISQUALIFICATION FOR THE
OFFICE OF MAYOR.,
This was an action brought by a burgess of South-
ampton against the mayor of that borough, to recover
501. penalty which he was said to have incurred under
the Municipal Corporations Act, the sth and 6th Wil-
liam IV., c. 76, by holding the office of mayor while he
was disqualified by having an interest in a contract with
the town council. On the trial before Mr. Justice Tal-
fourd at the last Hampshire assizes, the verdict was en-
tered for the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant Singlake, pursuant to leave reserved,
now moved for a rule to enter a nonsuit. The ground
upon which the action was brought was that Mr. Lan-
caster had in 1840, with some other town councillors,
become the assignee of a contract originally made with
a Mr. Collier, for the supply of Southampton with
water. In 1846 the contract was transferred to the
water commissioners of the borough, who were to pay
4,0001. on the surrender of the works, and 8501. when
a certain quantity of water should have been supplied
to the town in 24 hours. The interest of the commis-
sioners was subsequently transferred to the local board
of health, the town council, of which the defendant was
a member. He contended that this was not a contract
within the meaning of the Municipal Corporations Act
so as to disqualify Mr. Lancaster from acting as mayor.
The court granted a rule nisi.
POSTER 'V. THE MENTO INSURANCE COMPANT.-INSUR-
ANCE ON COUNT D'ORSAY'S LIFE.
This was an action brought by the representative of
the Britannia Mutual Insurance Company against the
defendants to recover 1,5001. the amount of a policy of
insurance effected by them upon the life of the late Count
D'Orsay. On the trial before Lord Campbell at Guild-
hall the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
The Attorney-General now moved for a rule nisi to
enter a nonsuit on the ground of misdirection. It, ap-
peared that in 1844 the Britannia Company effected an
insurance upon the life of Count D'Orsay for 4,5001.
The company subsequently came to a resolution not to
insure any one life for a larger amount than 3,0001.,
and endeavoured to transfer five insurances which
they had already effected exceeding that sum to other
offices • one of them was upon the life of the Duke
of Beaufort, and as his grace was then considered a
bad life they had same difficulty in getting rid of it. The
defendant's company ultimately agreed to take the ex-
cess beyond 3,0001. upon all the five lives, and among
the papers which were transferred to them by the Bri-
tannia Company was the declaration made by Count
D'Orsay, when the original insurance was effected, that
he was not at that time suffering under any disease
likely to cause death. Upon the death of Count D'Orsay
it appeared that at the time of the transfer to the 'de-
fendants he was suffering under a disease of that descrip-
tion. He (the Attorney-General) now submitted that
his lordship ought to have nonsuited the plaintiff,
the declaration ought to be considered as having beenas
made by the Britannia Company at the time of the
transfer. It was not denied that they were at that
time ignorant of the change in Count D'Orsay's health.
The court granted a rule nisi.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 5.
(Sittings in Banco.)
ARNOLD V. HAMEL.-THE ALLEGED DOCK MAIMS.
This case came on for trial before the Chief Baron at
the last sittings in London, when that learned judge
directed a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. E. James now moved for a new trial on the ground
of misdirection. It was an action of trespass, and there
was a count for work and labour and attendance to give
evidence as a witness. It appeared that the plaintiff
had been 'arrested and placed in Whitecross-street Pri-
son for penalties amounting to 7,5001. for buying the
dock sweepings ; and having been there three or four
months, application was made to him by some person
connected with the Customs to know whether he would
give evidence as to the part he had taken in certain
transactions at the London Docks. Having consented
to do so, he was discharged from Whitecross-street Pri-
son by the defendant, and was taken down to a frigate
lyingiin Dagenham-creek, where he was kept for eleven
months, and he was then brought to Westminster Hall
as a witness, but was not examined. After the case
had been opened on the part of the plaintiff, Sir F.
Thesiger objected to the reception of any evidence,
quoting the 117th sec. of the Bth and 9th Vic. cap.
87, which enacted that no writ should be sued out
against any officer of the army, navy, customs, excise,
&c., " for anything done in the execution of, and by
reason of, his office," until a month's notice had been
given to him in writing. In the present case no such
notice had been given. The facts having been ad-
mitted, the learned judge directed a verdict for the de-
fendant, without hearing the evidence.
The learned counsel now contended that it could not
be held that the solicitor of the customs was entitled to
the protection of the statute for any illegal act which he
might have done • and it should have been left to the
jury to say whether they believed the defendant was act-
ing bona fide in the discharge of his duty.
The Court were of opinion that the Chief Baron was
right in the course which he had adopted ; but, never-
theless, it was an important question, and ought to be
discussed.
Rule nisi.

BAIL COURT.—Nov. 5.

(Sittings at Nisi hius, before Mr. Justice Coleridge and

Common Juries.)
CANE AND ANOTHER V. HEATON AND ANOTHER.-
EJECTMENT.

Mr. Watson and Mr. Hindmarsh appeared for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Willes and Mr. Field for the de-
fendants.

This was an action for ejectment to recover possession
of some property in the manor of Ealing, the custom in
that manor being Borough-English, the youngest son
and youngest brother succeeding to property in prefer-
ence to other sons and daughters. One Thomas Cane
died intestate on the 25th of March, 1846. He had ac-
cumulated considerable property in this manor, but no
person appearing as his heir, some part of the property
was seized by the Crown, and some part by the Bishop
of London. The plaintiffs claimed as daughters of the
youngest uncle of the deceased. They had already re-
covered that part of the property which had been seized
by the Crown, and this action was brought to recover
that seized by the Bishop.
After the case had proceeded some way, it was ar-
ranged that a verdict should be taken for the plain-
tiffs, without costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
IN RE ARTIQUES.—IMPORTANT QUESTION ON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PENAL CLAUSES.
This was the certificate meeting in the case of Jules
Artiques, general merchant and'commission agent, of
Mark-lane.
The report of Mr. Pennell, the official assignee, stated
that the bankrupt was a Frenchman andlB came to Lon-
don on his father's business in Jul
after commenced business on his
July,
own 49c2 but shortly
mlnt.v The
balance sheet began on the Ist January,a
capital of 831. He now owed to creditors 15,L52Iiith ofa
which MR 8,8431. arose on transactions withhiwsaf:sttr,
who was also a bankrupt at Bordeaux. He
liable on the acceptances of other parties to the amount
of, 3,5981. The profits, from merchandise, commission,
charter parties, and other sources, had been 2,149/. ; but
against this was the sum of 2,279/., paid as freight and
insurance, which converted the profit into a loss. The
assets, in good debts and property, were estimated at
475/. ; doubtful debts 4,4041. The property held by
creditors amounted to 1,2631., and the claims upon it to
537/. ; but there was little or no surplus owing to the
heavy loss on the sale of the ship Iris, which cost about
1,1001., and sold for about 4001. The bankrupt's furni-
ture, which cost 3501., was settled on his wife's trustees
at his marriage, Ist arch, 1852. The losses by bad
debts were 3,759/. ; trade expenses, 1,480/. ; interest,
discount, and commission, 1,753/. ; interest on father's
debt, 1,321/. ; law expenses, 2501. ; travelling ditto, 8031.
The books were kept by double entry, but they had never
been balanced since the bankrupt commenced business.
The bankrupt had been very assiduous in assisting the
alisignees to realise this very complicated estate.
The adjudication was made in December last, on the
petition of Mr. George Corsi, banker, of the Rue Haute-
vine, Paris, a creditor for 8141. The case was last before
the court on the 24th of June, when the bankrupt
applied for his certificate, but ie application was ad-
journed si,ie die, in order that the bankrupt might bring
his father before the court for examination touching his
debts, or give proof of his inability to produce him. In
the interval the father had been examined. From an
account of the official assignee, made up to the 28th ult.,
it appeared that the whole of the assets realised amounted
to 162/., of which, deducting the expenses, 921. remained
in hand.
The
follows Commissioner on Saturday gave judgment as
:11--aThviiiis case did not come before him for the first
time.
case in
all
its fa had a full opportunity of considering the
once give his oniengs, he thought it right he should at
and the creditors should
upon it, rather than the bankrupt
Wa.ould be inconvenienced by attending
again. The case one of considerable importance, and
deserved an attentive
truly stated that the l) acn°lntsideration. It had been very
Input was a foreigner, and also
that, not being advanced
personn yt.
0e r:(,)
allowance oughtou
ght to be made for him.
to have allowances made when the Court was
bound to take care that thesirelli:
citiFnsiderations did not
justice and common sense.
lead it. beyond the bounds of
that a man 26 years of
The Court was not to assume
eared very Con.
age, and who, though a foreigner,
and our commercial code, was
to, from the ob-
servance with our language
which
an individual who ought to be exempted
servance of all the rules which ought
must govern those engaged in trade. "Witlai'anrseecet to
this gentleman's position, his history, so far
commissioner) could collect, appeared to be this. (tilet
seemed that his father,' having been engaged in business
in France, sent this young man to London in order to
manage his commercial transactions t
with this country.
In July, 1849, the ban,krupt, happening o be in this
country on his fathers business, himself embarked in
trade, thinking that thereby he would promote not only
his own but his father's views. He had no capital of his
own—nothing at least to be compared with the great
magnitude of his dealings in trade—his capital was only
801. 11s. 11d. ; that was the whole amount of capital
with which he credited himself. He (the commissioner)
knew of no law that should exempt him, though a
foreigner, from taking into account that when he began
business with nothing, as an adventurer, he ought
to be particularly careful and cautious before he em-
barked in speculations to a very large amount. Before he
rushed, hand over head as it were, into dealings involving
in amount a very considerable sum, 50,000/. or 60,0001.,

in the first year, ought he not to have asked himself this
question, "Am I, bringing nothing into the concern,
gambling with counters against ready money, to permit
myself to embark in all those large and extensive deal-
ings ? &m I not to consider how, by so doing, I may
affect the interests of other 3 ?" The Court must say it
was the bounden duty of every honest man, independ-
ently of every other consideration, to say to himself, "I
ought not to embark in those commercial transactions
unless I am quite sure that in so doing those who deal
with me are protected from loss." But it did not seem
that he had done so. He embarked in trade to a large
extent, he received a large. amount on consignment, and
he went to work as a merchant in the most reckless pos-
sible way, not considering for one moment how his con-
duct would bear on others with whom he had dealings.
He could not but be struck with the startling fact that
when he called his creditors together, there were only
owing to him in good debts 1021. Bs. Bd., whilst the bad
debts were 3,7591. Os. lid., and the doubtful 4,4041.
Here was nearly a sum of 9,0001. owing to the bankrupt
—debts hopelessly lost, debts for which it was not worth
the trouble of pressing, for which nobody would take
the trouble to press, because it would be a waste of time
and money to do so. In short, all the official assignee
had was 101/. That was all he had to pay this large
amount of debts. Let them look at the other side of the
account. There would be found an enormous amount
of expenditure, even with respect to the domestic ex-
penditure. Whatever might be thought upon the sub-
ject, the Court must observe that this bankrupt, who
bad begun with nothing, and involved others to a large
amount, had no right, at all events, to take any great
credit for spending only 4001. a year out of the pockets
of his creditors, seeing that he began with nothing.
After alluding to other features in the case the commis-
sioner proceeded. The bankrupt had sworn that he did
not contemplate or intend fraud when ordering the goods.
Looking at these circumstances, and having regard to
decided cases, rather than to his own opinion, he
thought he should err were he to hold that the evidence
was sufficient to satisfy him that- the bankrupt had con-
tracted these debts fraudulently and with intent to
cheat. The evidence in this case was infinitely weaker
than in that of Manico, or even in that of H. Martin.
At all events, it left his mind so much in doubt, that he
would give the accused the benefit of that doubt, and
absolve him from the fraud imputed to him in making
the contract. He took this course the more readily as
L it did not at all tie up the hands of the court in its judg-
ment as to the future protection of the bankrupt from
arrest. If the bankrupt were found guilty upon the
fraudulent contract, the court would be bound to refuse
him protection, and could not grant it at any time or
under any circumstances ; but by dealing with the case
on its general discretion, the court had still power to
withhold protection for such period as might satisfy the
justice of the case. There were one or two pOints that
were favourable to the bankrupt. Mr. Pennell reported
that he had been very assiduous in assisting his assignees
in their attempts to make the most of his very compli-
cated estate ; and the whole of his transactions were
entered in his books, so that the creditors had indeed
been enabled to make their charges against him from
those books. Those circumstances induced the court to
stop short of what was asked—the total refusal of the
certificate—an extreme to which they ought only to go
in a case that admitted of scarcely any mitigation. He
thought' the justice of the case might be met by sus-
pending the certificate for a period of two years from
the date of the adjudication ; when granted the certifi-
cate to be of the third class ; and the bankrupt to remain
without protection from arrest for six months from that
date.

Mr. Cooke—Will your Honour allow the costs of the
opposition ?

- The Commissioner—Oh, certainly. It is a most proper
opposition.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—Nov. 5,

ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.-IN RE CHARLES
SEEAR, ALIAS JAMES THOMPSON.
This insolvent, who was heard before the vacation,
appeared for judgment on a complaint of an assault and
false imprisonment. The insolvent was a grocer in Cal-
thorpe-place, Gray's-inn-lane, and it will be recollected
that he gave a Mrs. Burrows into custody about a pic-
ture of the Virgin, which was represented to be of great
value. The matter was before the magistrates, and ap-
peared before the public. An action was brought by
Mr. Burrows and his wife in the Court of Common
Pleas. The damages were 101., and the costs 521., for
which the insolvent was in custody. It appeared that
the insolvent, whose name was
.Seear, but who had
traded as "Thompson," had converted a private house
in Hunter-street, Brunswick-square, into a shop, which
he opened as a grocer's. It was now closed, and Mr.
Dowse appeared for the landlord, Mr. Henry, and
claimed possession, as he was a creditor before the adju-
dication was pronounced.
The judgment was, eleven weeks from the vesting
order, which will prolong the insolvent's imprisonment
a short time.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.

PORTSMOUTH, Nov. 6.

Rear-Admiral cf the White Sir Edmunds Lyons,
G.C.8., the newly appointed Second in Command of
the Mediterranean fleet, arrived at this port on Friday,
and was the guest of the Commander-in-Chief at the Ad-
miralty-house. Yesterday the Fire Queen steam-yacht,
Master-Commander Paul, embarked Sir Edmund from
the King's-stairs and took him to Spithead, where he
embarked on board the Terrible, 21, paddle-frigate,
Captain M'Cleverty, which immediately hoisted his flag,
and exchanged salutes with the Port-Admiral. This
morning the Terrible left Spithead for. Malta, touching
at Plymouth for a boat, &c.
The London, 90, Captain Eden, sailed from Spithead
yesterday afternoon for the Mediterranean.
The Medea, 6, paddle-sloop, Commander J. C. Bailey,
arrived at Spithead from the West India station. She
left Bermuda on the 26th of September, and Halifax on
the 19th, at which date the Cumberland, 70, Vice-Ad-
miral Sir George Seymour, and the Calypso, 20, Cap-
tain Forbes, were at the latter station. She has sailed
home, except during the last three days, which will
account for the length of the passage. Her colonial
news has, of course, been anticipated by the mail
packets.
Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of
Brabant, Count of Flanders, and suites, will arrive in
this borough to-morrow, and put np at the George
Hotel. Her Majesty has ordered her yacht, the Fairy,
to be in readiness at 11 a.m., to embark their Highnesses,
and carry them out to inspect the fleet, Osborne, &c.
The Fearless steam-vessel shipped the baggage, &c.,
of Rear-Admiral Sir Edmund Lyons from the dockyard
yesterday evening, and transferred it to the Terrible, a
Spithead.

WOOLWICH, Nov. 5.
APPOINTMENTS.

Master Charles Pope (1829), at present Assistant-
Master-Attendant at Sheerness Dockyard, and in charge
of the Cyclops steam-frigate, employed in the conveyance
of stores to and from the various home dockyards, is
appointed Master-Attendant at Chatham Dockyard, vice
Thomas Laen, promoted to be a retired commander.
Master John Jackson (1835), to be Assistant-Master-
Attendant at Sheerness, vice Charles Pope, appointed
to Chatham Dockyard.
Surgeon Joseph Caldwell (1842), to be Surgeon-Super-
intendent of the Sea Park convict ship.
Second Masters—Robert Coon (1853), from the St.
George, 120, guardship of ordinary at Devonport, to the
Dasher steam-vessel, employed surveying the Channel
Islands ; Charles C. Mitchell (1844), from the -Fisgard,
flagship at Woolwich, to the St. George, vice Coon♦
Clerk's Assistant W. W. Hyde, to the Princess Royal,
90, screw steam-ship, at Portsmouth.