The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-09 00:00:00

RAPHAEL V. GOODMAN.

This was an ac' ion cn a bond given to the Sheriff. The defence was
that the bond had been obtained by fraud. The Jury returned a verdict
for the defendant, finding that the bond had been obtained from the
defendant by the fraudulent representation of the Sheriff's officer. A
rule had since been obtained to set aside that verdict,
on the ground
that the fraudulent conduct of the officer could not affect a security
given by the Sheriff.
Mr. TIIESIGER showed cause against the rule.—Ruts discharged.

EXCHEQUER COURT, JUNE 8.
IN TUE MATTER OF TUE ESTREAT OF MECOGNIZANCES ENTERED INTO

BY EDWARD SCOTT AND OTHERS.
The Courer gave judgment in this case, which was argued
last term
by Sir William Follett against the rule, and Mr. Maule in support of
upon an application made to take the recognizance, off the file, which
had been certified into this Court by the Speaker of the House of Co_rnmons, pursuant to 9 George IV., cap. 22, sec. 65. There being a peti-
tion against the return of Mr. Richards for the county of Merioneth, the
usual recognizances had been entered into, but the petitioners having
failed to appear before the House on the day appointed to try the merits
of the petition, no Committee had been struck. The Speaker had
caused the costs to be taxed, and the petitioner having refused, for the
space of six months after the demand for the amount, to pay the same
to the person petitioned against, the Speaker had certified the default
and recognizances into this Court. The question was whether he had
the power to do so, and whether the recognizances could be enforced ;
and this would depend upon the construction of the 60th section of the
Act. This Act had not been very carefully drawn, and, in order, to
give effect to the construction contended for on the part of the Crown,
the words of the 60th section must be taken to mean that the costs
should be taxed within three mouths after the determinatilii of the
merits of the petition; or, if no such determination took place, at any
time. The Court was obliged either to qualify the language of the 60th
section, or to strike out some part of it ; and of these two courses, the
one doing least violence to the words of the Act seemed that of qualify-
ing them, by which the Court would give effect to every enactment of
the statute, would make every part of the recognizances operative, and
would enable the Speaker to direct the costs to be taxed in every case,
which would be likely to prevent many vexatious petitions. Tht2argu.
ment on the other side was that it was intended that the petitioner should
have this locus petitentia, but this argument was answered by the cir-
cumstance that there would be the same locus pcenitentim if the sitting
Member e!sould chose to give it. The view, therefore, which the Court
took of the Act itself was, that the recognizances had in this case been
forfeited and duly certified. It had been said that the examination of
former Acts (28 Geo. 111., c. 32, and 53 Geo. 111., C. 7) ought to lead
the Court to a different conclusion, but they had not found it to be so.
The Court did not mean to say that there was no doubt upon their
' minds upon the subject, but they might suppose that the Legislature
might have intended to give no remedy fur these costa by action, as it
had done under the 53d George 111., but that the remedy upon the re.
cognizances should still continue. The view of the Court was fortified
by the case of Bruyers v. Halcombei in the Court of Queen's Bench,
3 Ad. and Ellis, 38.

ARCHES' COURT, JuNE 8.
MOORE v. MOORE.

loorigrhet,', promoted
husband. Tpromoted by Mrs.
...—___
AnTnhais wiaarsiaa s3utoltofroer raegsatiintuationmonf c
j(anm.juesgal‘l
he
parties were married in IEO6, and cohabited till 1818. An allegation
was now offered in which adultery, commencing
-3 i, i ~,n
•`-'•,l was pleaded
against the wife; and which is the same as a rejected libel ii, a
suit
promoted by the husband against the wife in the Court of the Dean
and Chapter of St. Paul's, and which paper was subsequently rejected by
gave his decision on this suit fur divorce, which
this Court. The Court rejected thee allegation.
The earner} JpDGC TT. COLLETT.
h -
is promote 4 by the wife apinst the husband Pp
t ° ground of adultery.
The Court piorP;slned :against:against the appeal, affirming
the 4,:ision of the
Court below, and passing the sentence of divorce as prayed for,

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, ..itrArE EL
the grqttud that the insolvent, who
The lion. 'Wert Pies came up to receive the judgment of the
Court. The insolvent, a son of Viscount Gormanstown, was before the
obtained some articles of
Court on Friday last. The complaint, on the part of Mr. Else, jewel.
his debts, In a few days after
ler,wa, ofat
tßhuerltiinmgt:uin.ahrLadlZTa°dP
jewellery,
which he said he intended to present to the lady to whom he was shortly
, - ato a pmTni)roicer
S 2 he married ; he should immediately after the ceremony obtain a con-
siderable
constd;rzbly
the, :,if:f!si' mw7rer ;b4tla; I7ri:'; (la nt
;tier stu'ledr epa.oYl ,
„•—.l, the price charged for them. The inscilvent said they were pre.
Urn.
serueet sus rti4Fr)o by the lady In questien. The Marriage had been
broken 4f.

The COURT held that the debt with Mr. Else on the latter transaction
had been fraudulently incurred.
The case stood over for the production of a marriage settlement. The
insolvent came up zgain, but its production was waived.
The insolvent, in answer to a question from the Court, said he went
to prison on the 3d of October, and had been. within the walls the whole
of the time.

Mr, Commissioner HARRIS gave judgment. The judgment of the
Court was, that the insolvent was entitled to the benefit of the Act, as
to all his creditors except Mr. Else, at whose suit he should be discharged
so soon as he had been in custody a period of six calendar mouths for
fraudulently contracting a part of his debt. The Learned Commissioner
added that the insolvent would, at the expiration of the adjudication,
have been twelve months in prison.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

A poor woman, named Bird, was charged with having been very trcu-
blesome and annoying to Mr. Green, a respectable solicitor. She had a
child in her arms, and appeared to be in a very destitute condition.
A gentleman who conducts the business of Mr. Green stated that
the defendant and her two brothers would, upon the death of some
old annuitants, come in for property to a considerable amount, and
that Mr. Green was the solicitor employed for the recovery of the pro.
perty, which was at present in Chancery, and had undertaken the case
without having received any of the expenses attendant upon it ;
that the defendant and her husband seemed to consider that Mr.
Green was under obligations to support them up to the time
at which the annuitants shou'd cease to exist, and that the insults and
threats to which he had been subjected in consequence of his refusal
to accede to so unreasonable a proposition had become of late intolera.
ble ; that Mr. Green had very frequently supplied them with money to
assist the defendant's husband in carrying on his trade, but that the
public-house received the money so advanced, and of course it was of
no use to the family.
The Loan Mavoa
.asked what might be the amount of the pro.
perty to which the woman and her brothers would become entitled? The
complainant replied that it might amount to perhaps 7,000/. or 8,000/.,
and that they had endeavoured to obtain advances of money upon the
strength of their expectations.
The defendant said that she and her husband and family were in
the most deplorable condition, although they had such prospects. The
husband was a carpenter, and had been obliged to pawn even his tools
for bre td.

The LORD MAYOR told the defendant that she was adopting the worst
means of obtaining astistance.
The defendant assured his Lordship that she would give no Inore
trouble, and was discharged.