The Sun.
London, England, 1854-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 4.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENOIL
JUDEIN (CLERK) V. FIELD.-ASSAULT.

Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Serjeant Atkinson, and Mr.
Hance appeared for the plaintiff.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Bovill represented the
defendant.

Mr. Hance said that the plaintiff was the Rev. Tho-
mas James Judkin, and the defendant was Alfred
George Field. The declaration was for an assault,
and the defendant pleaded that he did not assault the
plaintiff.
The Rev. Thomas James Judkin examined—l am the
plaintiff. lam the minister of Somers Chapel, St. Pan-
cras, and reside in Euston-square. I married the wi-
dow of Alderman Lainson. - She had five daughters by
her former husband, the eldest of whom is married to
the defendant. On the 10th of June last I saw Mrs.
Field going up stairs. I said to her, " Mrs. Field,
your husband forbade you coming to this house. You
know it is an annoyance to me, and I am surprised you
should do so." She said, " I shall come." Mrs. Field
went and told one whom I really do not wish to name,
and by that person I was locked in my room. I after-
wards saw Mrs. Field, and said, "This is the conse-
quence of your corning." She said, " I shall come,"
and her sisters said, " She shall come when she likes."
I said, " If you say she shall come I shall be obliged to
send for a policeman to remove you ;" upon which one
of the young ladies said jeeringly, " Shall I go for a
policeman ?" I said, " I will send for one when I think
proper." Somebody—l think from the answer I gave
Mrs. Field—said, "I ou bear with the shaggy eye-
brows ;" and I said, " Do you call yourself a beauty ?"
putting my hand to my face.
The Attorney-General—Putting your hand to your
nose ?
Witness—No, to my cheek—that is material. Mrs.
Field said, "You are a pretty clergyman ; are you now
preparing for to-morrow's duties ?" I said, " You are a
nasty creature"—referring to her disposition. A certain
person in the room- --
The Attorney-General—Do not be so mysterious.
Sir F. Thesiger—You mean Mrs. Judkin ?
Witness—Yes. Mrs. Judkin shrieked, and her
daughter threw up the window. I saw a crowd, and
thought it was disgraceful to a clergyman that such a
scene should take place, so I put down the window ;
but as fast as I put one down they put up the other.
I then sent out the servant to say that the lady had
fainted. On the following day (Sunday) I received
a letter from the defendant. On the following day,
about 10 o'clock, while I was talking to a gentleman in
the study, Mr. Field rushed in with his hat on. I said,
" It is usual for a gentleman in a gentleman's house to
take his hat off." He said, " I shall not. Did you,
sir, say you would solid for a policeman to turn my wife
out of the house ?" I said, " I did." He then struck
me on the breast with his fist. He then drew from
under his coat a whip, and struck me with it several
times. I ordered him out of the house. Ho said, " I

shall go when I like." I ought to have said, that I
pointed to a picture at the interview with Mrs. Field,
and said, " Look at that." I referred to a picture-frame
that had been taken away when I was ill, and I said,
" Perhaps my plate will go in the same way." One of
her sisters said, "Do you say Eliza is a thief ?" And I
said, " Oh, Ido not say that." I have suffered sinco
great deal. The defendant is a strong man.
Gross-examined by the Attorney-General--Mrs. Judkin
• has a jointure of 7001. a y'ar. She had five daughters
by her former husband. They had 6,0001. each. Two
of the other daughters—Lydia and Adelaide—aro mar-
ried. I have not done my best to exclude the married
daughters from the house. I did not tell Mrs. Field
that her husband had been guilty of felony, or that he
was a receiver of stolen goods.
The Attorney-General—You say Mrs. Judkin was in
a chair. Did she faint?
Witness—How can I know that She has done the
same thing before, and I mean to say it was a feint in-
stead of fainting. (Laughter.)
The Attorney-General then summed up the evidence
for the defence, and
• Sir F. Thesiger replied on the whole case.
The jury, after a few minutes consideration, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 501.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

FOX V. NEALB AND ANOTHER-TIIE PIMLICO BUILDERS'

ASSOCIATION.

This was an action to recover 1431. for goods sold and
delivered, and the plea was never indebted.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Petersdorff, ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Serjeant Byles and
Mr. Skinner, for the defendants.
It appeared that the plaintiff was a brick, lime, and
cement merchant, and the action was brought against
Mr. E. Vansittart Neale and Mr. Hughes, who were
barristers ; but, in the course of the case, proceedings
were discontinued against Mr. Hughes, and his name
was accordingly struck off the proceedings. As against
Mr. Neale, the plaintiff's case was, that during the tem-
porary misunderstanding which existed three or four
years ago between employers and their workmen, several
gantlemen, including Lord Goderich, Mr. Neale, Mr.
Morris, and Mr. Hughes, associated themselves to-
gether for the purpose of assisting the working classes
by co-operation to carry on works and amass capital, so
as to enable them to start on their own account, and
without the assistance of masters. Among other schemes
with this object was the Pimlico Builders' Association,
and to enable then to build Mr. Neale took leases of
land in his own name, and he advanced out of his own
pocket about 5,000/. or 6,0001. It turned out, how-
ever, that instead of the buildings being completed for
less than 8,0001,, and. there being a handsome sum over
to be used as capital, that there was a loss upon the
speculation of nearly 1,0001. The plaintiff had supplied
various articles to be used in building the houses, and
for the price of part of these articles the present action
was brought upon the ground that they had been sup-
plied upon the credit of Mr. Neale.
The case on the part of Mr. Neale was that he had
acted only from a philanthropic motive in rendering as-
sistance to the Pimlico Builders' Association, and that
he had never authorised his credit to be pledged in the
transaction ; but on the contrary had been particularly
careful not to do so.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
IN RE ranicK AND PRINCE.

The bankrupts were described as wine and cigar
merchants, and proprietors of Prince's Club, Regent-
street, and Canton-street. This was the adjourned
examination meeting. The accounts have been al-
ready published at length. The bankrupts owe to unse-
cured creditors 17,3981., and to those holding security
13,773/.
Mr. Cooper opposed for the assignees, and said that
the assets would not yield a dividend of id. in the
pound.
Mr. Linklater opposed for a creditor ; Mr. Chidley
appeared for the bankrupts.
George Prince, in examination, deposed that in Sep-
tember, 1850, they had a capital of 5901. There wer
three partners ; one was a lady, Elizabeth Muller, his
brother's wife, who became a partner about twelve
months previous to the bankruptcy. Her name was
not put in the lease of the club chambers, nor in the
assignment of the lease of the premises in Carlton-street.
Witness and his brother were in the habit of drawing
bills on her, whidh she accepted. Had only told two
creditors that sho was a partner. They carried on a
wine and cigar business, but her name did not appear in
the licenses. She bad accepted bills in the name of
, Muller after her marriage. The capital consisted of
2001., or thereabouts, from Muller's mother. 1001. was
witness's, and the balance was his brother's. He had
been insolvent in 1850. The partnership commenced
in September of the same year. He paid no dividend
under his insolvency. He owed between 5,0001. and
7,0001.
The Commissioner—At what time had you the capi-
tal of 5901.
Bankrupt—On Sept. 29, in the year the balance-sheet
commences.
The bankrupt was asked as to the mode in which that
capital was disbursed ; but his explanation was unsatis-
factory, and his Honour said that if his answers
were not more satisfactory ho should adjourn the case
sine die.
The bankrupt further stated that the premises were
taken by himself and brother for Muller ; the arrange-
ment was that he and his brother wore to be ostensible
partners. The arrangement was not in writing. No
arrangement was made as to the proportion in which
the capital should be subscribed.
Commissioner—Is not the fact of Muller being a
partner Wally suppressed and concealed in your balance-
sheet ?
Mr. Chidley said it came upon him as a novelty.
The Commissioner —And it comes upon me as a no-
velty. I shall adjourn the examination of the bankrupts
sine die. They have been before the court since June
last ; yet now, for the first time, notwithstanding they
have sworn to their balance-sheet, we are informed there
was a third partner. It is about as scandalous a case
as ever came before the court. I adjourn the last exa-
mination sine die.
Mr. Cooper—l trust your Honour will refuse protec-

tion.
The Oommissioner—C-lertainly ; no protection:
Mr. Linklater applied for a certificate of execution
under the penal section of the act, which was granted.
IN RE JOHN ENSOIt ROPLIZ.
This insolvent, who had kept the Garrick's Head in
Bow-street, applied for bail till the hearing. Mr. Nichols
opposed, and Mr. Sargoed supported.
Two licensed victuallers named Lilly were the sureties.
They said they had been betting men, but were not now,
on which the learned Commissioner said it was well,
adding that there was a " dreadful Act of Parliament."
(A laugh.) The bail were examined—one kept the Pea-
cock at Islington, and had ample property to justify.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips said he did not think the
Peacock would lose a single feather. (Laughter.)

Bail accepted.
IN RE RICHARD HARRIS.-NOVEL QUESTION.
This insolvent, a farrier, was opposed by Mr. Sargood,
and supported by Mr. Reed.
This insolvent was a candidate for the inspectorship of
Slaughterhouses at Whitechapel in June last, and spent
401. on the contest. There were five candidates, and he
was second on the poll. The income from the office
would have amounted to 2501. a year. In August he
petitioned under the Protection Act, and being within
three months, the question was, whether the insolvent
had " parted with or charged his property, except for
the necessary support of his family.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips held that the expenditure
of the money in the contest, which should have gone to
the creditors, was a parting with property not within
the exceptions mentioned in the
.act, and the petition
must be dismissed,—The petition was accordingly dis-
missed.