The Sun.
London, England, 1854-12-08 00:00:00

I I,T IX ANDRE'S.

This was the last examination meeting in the case of
R. Aidrews, corn-dealer, of Braintree. His debts are
about 1,2001.
The solicitor to the assignees said this case, was one of
an unusually flagrant kind. The bankrupt had contracted
debts to a considerable amount. had divested himself of
every shilling's worth of property, and then, being lul-
-1 prisoned, had petitioned of the Insolvent Court. The
commissioner there refused to release him, unless he fur-
nished accounts which he obstinately refused to do, and
was twice remanded. He then contrived to contract
another debt, and had his case brought into bankruptcy.
He was released from custody, on undertaking to fur-
nish accounts; but, though two months had since elapsed,
he had not yet filed his balance-sheet. The creditors felt
that the only mode of getting hold of the property which
the bankrupt had fraudulently carried away was by im-
prisoning him.
His Honour adjourned the examination sine die, with.
held protection, and granted a certeficate of execution
under the 257th section.

IN EE JONES AND GOLD.-" HIS Lonbsurp's LARDER,

The bankrupts had kept the above eating-house ie
Cheapside. This was the certificate meeting. The ac-
counts hare already appeared. The unsecured debts
were under 3,000/.
Mr. Pearce, for the assignees, ofered no opposition to
the bankrupts having their certificates.
Me. Lawrance, for the bankrupts, attributed their
failure, to the high price of bread and provisions, and to
the large expenses necessarily incurred in establishing
the businesss. Geld had begun with a capital of
1,700/., but this had been all absorbed ; and altogether
the outlay had been about 5,000/. The bankrupts had
done their utmost since the failure to assist the as•
signee.
His Honour granted immediate certificate of the
second class.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
IN RE JAMES FRANCIS KITT.

This insolvent, who applied tinder the Protection Act,
was opposed by a Jew named Costa, who alleged that
he gave the insolvent 21. for a ticket to go to New York,
on the understanding that it was transferable. It
turned out not to be transferable, and he had lost his
money. He sued him iu the County Court.
The insolvent denied that ho had represented the
ticket as transferable.
It came out in evidence that he had incurred debts,
without value for another person.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips refused to name a day for
the final order, as debts were incurred without value,
and recommended Costa, on the next occasion to bring
evidence to support his statement.

Protection withheld.
HINT TO DIBTORiI.

Sereral cases were heard, under the Protection ♦ct,
of persons who had become security far loan societies
for their friends when they could not pay their own
debts.

Mr. Commissioner Phillips lectured the applicants,
and refused to grant protection. His Honour permitted
them to apply in short periods for protecting enters.
Such conduct could not be justified. .

SHERIFF'S COURT.
WILIEO7 V. THI LONDON, BRIGHTON, ♦ND ■OI3TH COAST

RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was a writ of inquiry to assess the damages in
an ;action, brought to recover for the non-delivery of
goods, entrusted to the defendants for conveyance to
Strood in Kent.
Mr. Prentice appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Maynard
for the defendants.
The plaintiff was a dealer in Government stores, re•
siding at Chatham, and in August last he went to a sale
at Portsmouth, where he purchased a quantity of hemp,
oakum, d.c., to the amount of 2001. 12s. Bd. He directed
at first that they should be sent by water, but en his
return he sold what he had bought for 3081. 15e. ad.,
and in consequence he found it necessary to coun-
termand the order for the goods to be sent by water, and
he wrote to his agent at Portsmouth to send them by
railway to Strood. They were accordingly delivered at
the railway, and entered for that destination, but they
did not arrive, and after some inquiry it was found
that they had been sent to Stroud in Gloucestershire.
This was not discovered until 17 days after they should
have been delivered, and the plaintiff then refused to
receive them. An offer of 101. was made on the part
of the defendants, but it was refused, the plaintiff ask-
ing 601. for his loss on the bargain ; that was refused,
and lie brought this action to recover the whole amount
he paid for the goods, and the difference between that
and the sum he sold them for. The goods were still
in the possession of the company.
After hearing the evidence and a good deal of argil.
meat,
The jury ultimately as.essed the damages at the
whole sum claimed-3181, 15s. gd.