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

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

EITRITSIVE ROBBERY OF PLATE.--During divine ser-
vice on Sunday evening last, the house of Mr. R. W.
Moore, Woodhouse-sare, Leeds, was plundered of a
large quantity of silver plate and jewellery. The thieves
having scaled an outer wall, cut a large circular hole in
a panel of the back door, and drew back the locks and
bolts. They then entered the house, which they ran-
sacked of plate and jewellery and other valuables to the
amount of fully 2501. The thieves got clear off with
their booty before the family returned from church. A
handsome reward. Is offered for the apprehension of the
thieYes.

PDX V. NEALD AND ANOTHER-THE 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. Skixner, 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 Gederich, 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
an to enable them to start on their •wn account, and
without the assistance of masters. .A.mong other schemes
with this object was the Pimlico Builders Association,
and to enable thee► to build Mr. Neale took leases of
land in his own name, and he advanced out of his own
pocket about 5,0001. 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
'NU 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 defendait.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
IN YE PENCE AND PRINCE.
The bankrupts were described as wine and cigar
merchants, and proprietors of Prince's Club, Regent.
street, and Carlton-street. This was the adjourned
examination meeting. The accounts have been al-
ready published at length. The bankrupts owe to unse-
cured creditors 17,393/., 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 590/. There were
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 is Carlton-street.
Witness and his brother were in the habit of drawing
bills on her,! which she accepted. Had only told two
creditors that she was a partner. They carried on a
wine and cigar business, but her name did not appear in
the licenses. She had accepted bills in the name of
Muller after her marriage. The capital consisted of
2001., or thereabonts, from Muller's mother. 100/. 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 5,000/. 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 Pa which that
capital was disbursed ; but his explanation was unsatis-
factory, bad his Honour said that if his answers
were not more satisfactory he 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 were to be •stensble
partners. The arrangement was not in writing. No
arrangement was made as to the proportion in which
the capital should be subscribed.
Commissioner—ls not the fact of Muller being a,
partner totally suppressed and concealed in your balance-
sheet
Mr. Chidley said it came upon him as a novelty.
The Commissioner—And it comos 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 ease
as ever came before the court. I adjourn the last exa-
rtination sine die.
Mr. Cooper—l trust your Honour will refuse protec-

Lion.
The Commissioner—Certainly ; no protection:
Mr. Linklater applied for a certificate of execution
under the penal section of the act, which was granted.
IN RE JOHN ENSOR POPLZ.
This insolvent, who had kept the Garrick's Head in
Bow-street, applied for bail till the hearing. Mr. Nichols
opposed, aid Mr. Sargood 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 Islingtcn, 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
10/. on the contest. There were five candidates, and he
was second on the poll. The income from the office
would have amounted to 250/. 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,