The Sun.
London, England, 1853-12-22 00:00:00

RAILWAY TRAFFIC RETURNS.

THE GREAT NORTHERN RAlLWAY.—Traffic return for
the week ending Dec.ll, 1853 £18,455 5 10
Corresponding week last year 14,402 5 11

LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAlLWAY.—Traffic re-
turn for tho week ending Dec. 18, 1853... £17,041 10 5
Corresponding week last year, 17,478 0 7

CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAlLWAY.—Traffic return for
the week ending Dec. 18, 1853 £3,861 12 11
Corresponding week last year 3,074 6 6

Increase in 1853
CORK AND BANDON RAlLWAY.—Traffic return for the
week ending Dec. 17, 1853 £195 19 11
Corresponding week last year l4l 13 7

THE KENT DIGGINGS.--One day last week, as Mr.
Delevan, formerly in the coast guard service, was walk-
ing near Cross-gate, near Mr. Bigg's farm, Minster,
Shepoy, he saw something glittering on the ground ;
he picked it up, and found it to be a nugget of gold at-
tached to a stone, which he sold for 3/.—South, Eastern
Gazette.

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY).

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Secondary Putter.)
NEGLECT OF ATTORNEYS.-WOOD v. BUSSELL.

This was an action to recover the sum of 31. 19s. 9d.,
being the balance of an account for work done. The
plaintiff is a law stationer in Chancery-lane, and defend.
ant an attorney.

Mr. Lush appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Pierce for the defendant, but the attornies on both
■ides were absent.

Mr. Lush, after the jury had been in the box for half-
an-hour, said that he must proceed without the assist-
ance of the attorney, and called Mr, Wood, whose evi-
dence made out a prima facie case, and was confirmed
by a witness called by defendant's counsel.

Mr. Pierce said that, according to his instructions,
there was a good defence to the action ; but, of course,
as the defendant was not present he must, submit to a
verdict; for to make out any case he had been left to
call one of the plaintiff's witnesses, who had confirmed
the evidence of the plaintiff.
Verdict for the amount claimed.
In a second case neither of the attorneys appeared,
and the cause was struck out.

The jury complained of their unnecessary delay, but
there did not appear to be any redress ; some said that
they would have been fined for non-attendance, but the
attorneys were not, and that a rule should be made to
compel attorneys to give due notice if they did not intend
to try the cases, as they got their fees but the jurors
did not.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans, Senior Commissioner).
IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO PROTECTION AFTER SUSPEN-

OF CERTIFICATE.-IN RE WRIGHT.

This bankrupt had carried on business as a draper, at
Maldon, and in May last his certificate was suspended
for two years, without protection for six months, which
period having expired.

Mr. Linklater applied for protection until the time the
certificate would be granted.

Mr. Bagley, fur a creditor; opposed the application on
two grounds first, that the court had no jurisdiction hav-
ing once‘ adjudicated, and that where there any discretion-
ary power it did not exist in this case, as the bankrupt had
kept out of the way to avoid any execution against him.
The policy of the bankrupt law was to award a certain
amount of punishment where there had been any offence
committed under the bankrupt law, and the suspension
of the certificate was the mildest course ; but it implied
that the bankrupt should be left at the mercy of the
creditors during the time the protection was refused, as
the protection operated not only against debts provable,
but those unprovable, even against the Crown, which
was not affected by the bankruptcy. He (Mr. Bagley)
would call a witness to prove that the bankrupt had
kept out of the way to avoid arrest, and had thereby
deprived himself of all claim for protection, until he had
suffered the intended punishment.
Mr. John Eaton, one of the officers of the Sheriff of
Essex, was called, and proved that he had endeavoured
to arrest the bankrupt, at Maldon, and that another
officer held a warrant at Bury St. Edmonds, but the
bankrupt had not been seen.

His Honour said that, acting on discretion, he must
be satisfied that the bankrupt had wilfully kept out of
the way ; but in this case there was no evidence, and on
the cases decided before the Lord Justices he was of
opinion that the period of non-protection could not be
extended, as their lordships considered that the anxiety
was almost commensurate with actual confinement ; and
as in the other cases where the certificates were wholly
refused, their lordship had held that protection should,
after a certain period, be granted.
Protection was accordingly granted.

SHERIF'F'S COURT.
(Before R. Gurney, Big.)
NEALE AND ANOTHER V. THE STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.
This was an action to recover damages for losses sus-
tained by the sinking of a lighter with a cargo of coals.
The damage was estimated at M. 18s.
The case lasted a long time, and as in matters of col-
lision by road, rail, or river, the evidence was very con-
flicting, but the preponderance was in favour of the
plaintiff, it being shown that the ligher had gone down
through the swell of two steamers belonging to the
company.

His Honour therefore gave judgment for the amoun
claimed.

ENORMOUS EXPENSES OF COUNTY COURT PRACTICE.-

IN RE BUCHANAN V. THORLEY.
Mr. W. R. Buchanan, solicitor, who was plaintiff in
this case, applied for a commitment against the defen-
dant under peculiar circumstances, which prove the
utter inefficiency of the present law to enforce payment
from an obstinate or dishonest creditor. It appeared
from the statement of Mr. Buchanan that he had ori-
ginally taken proceedings on a bill of exchange for 101.,
and was compelled to sue the defendant in the Shore-
ditch County Court, and obtained judgment, to avoid
which defendant removed to this district, and it had
been necessary to take out three judgment summonses.
On one defendant had been committed for 7 dap, and
on two others 20 days each. The costs of the proceed-
ings being nearly 101., money out of pocket, and had he
(Mr. Buchanan) been suing for a client the numerous
attendances would have run up to a very large amount
—perhaps 30f. The defendant had been in constant
work at 30s. a week.

His Honour said that he would endeavour to bring
the defendant to his senses, and would now order a
commitment for 40 days.
Mr. Buchanan said he would not take out the war-
rant immediately to spoil a family of a Christmas
dinner.