The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—JAx. 3.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Phillips.)

IN THE MATTER OF CONSTANTINO NICOLA. COMBOTTIS.

This insolvent, a native of Greece, applied to be dis-
charged from prison. The case was somewhat peculiar.
Mr. Cooke appeared to oppose on the part of Messrs.
Ingate and Malteso, merchants in the city, and Mr. Sar-
good supported.
The insolvent had traded in this country and at
Patras, in Greece, as a merchant. He made a consign-
ment of currants to the house of Ingate and Malteso, at
Patras, and obtained an advance. The currants were
sold, but the markets were affected, and after the sale a
balance was claimed from him, and the opposing credi-
tors had brought their action to recover the same, and
had arrested him on a judge's order.
The case was before the court on Saturday, and stood
over for an interpreter. It was stated that the insol-
vent could not speak a word of English, and the officer
of the Queen's Prison said he could not make him
un-
derstand that he wanted his fees. An interpreter was
now in attendance.
The insolvent on his examination, stated that he had
been a bankrupt at Patras, and had given up all his pro-
perty there ; he had now no property.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips inquired the grounds of
opposition on the part of Messrs. Ingate and Malteso,
who were the only creditors, with the exception of the
insolvent's own attorney.

Mr. Cooke said there had been a vexatious defence,
and an improper commencement of a suit in Chancery.
The circumstances, as stated, respecting the currants,
were mentioned. The insolvent, it appeared, had been
six months in prison, at the suit of the opposing creditors.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips directed some amendments
as suggested, and under all the circumstances of the case
thought justice would be answered by allowing the insol-
vent to be discharged.

The insolvent was ordered to be discharged.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Murphy.)
IN BE JANES CBOFT.
_ _

This insolvent was opposed by Mr. Dowse for a cre-
ditor named Hill, and supported by Mr. Reed.
The case was before the court on a former occasion.
The point was a vexatious defence. The insolvent swore
that he had not authorised the defence, and that his op-
posing creditor knew he had petitioned the court.
Several witnesses were examined to-day, and the evi-
dence was of a contradictory character.

The court thought that :under all the circumstances
the insolvent was entitled to his discharge, and it was
granted.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy sat to-day at 10 o'clock,
and will continue to sit at the same hour instead of 11
o'clock. It is necessary to call public attention to the
alteration.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—Jan. 3.
OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
George Flume was indicted for wilful and corrupt per-
jury.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Clarke conducted the nosecu-
tion ; Mr. Robinson was counsel for the defendant.
Mr. Bodkin, in opening the case, said that the defen-
dant was formerly a member of the Metropolitan Police
Force, and the present prosecution was preferred against
him by the direction of the Commissioners of that force,
who, he said, while they felt it their duty to protect
every member of that body while acting properly in the
discharge of his duty, considered it was equally required
of them to take care that the law was put in force against
any person belonging to the police who was guilty of
any gross misconduct, such as was imputed to the pre-
sent defendant. The learned counsel then proceeded to
state that the prosecutor of the indictment was a, person
named Whitley, who it appeared had been to Kingston
fair on Nov. 15, and on his return home stopped at a
beer-shop called the Leather Bottle, at Merton, and it
would seem that the defendant, another constable named
Howe, and three other policemen, were at this place
drinking. The prosecutor and the constables drank to-
gether, and for some time would appear to have been on
very good terms, but at length they commenced " lark-
ing, ' as it is termed, and the prosecutor knocked the
defendant's hat over his eyes. Upon this he threw the
prosecutor down twice with considerable violence,
and when he got up he complained that he was
hurt, and said that he should report the defendant's
conduct to his inspector on the following morn-
ing. The defendant was very angry at his making
this threat, and insisted upon taking the prosecutor
into custody, and they walked together towards the
police station at Wandsworth, but just before they
arrived there the' defendant expressed his willingness
to let the matter drop. The prosecutor, however, would
not consent to this, and they all proceeded to the
station, where the defendant charged the prosecu-
tor with being drunk and assaulting him. The case was
investigated on the following morning before Mr.
Beadon, the magistrate, and the defendant then swore
that the prosecutor had assaulted him, and he also de-
clared upon his oath that he had not been drinking with
the prosecutor at the beer-shop. Howe, his companion,
was called as a witness to support the charge, and he
also swore that neither he nor Hume had drunk with the
prosecutor, but upon the declaration of the prosecutor
and other testimony, the magistrate was satisfied that
the statement made by both the constables was false,
and he consequently dismissed the charge against the
prosecutor, and upon the facts being reported to the
Commissioners they directed a prosecution for perjury
to be instituted against both the constables.
_ _

Evidence was- adduced which established in the
clearest manner, the case, as it was stated by the learned
counsel.

Mr. Robinson addressed the jury for the defendant,
and he also called witnesses to prove that he had been
in the police for several years, and, that up to the time
of this transaction he had borne a very good character.
The Recoider having summed up the whole of the
evidence, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, but re-
commended the defendant to the mercy of the court, on
account of his previous good character.
Ephraim Knight Howe, the constable referred to in
the transaction, was then placed at the bar to take his
trial for a similar offence.

Mr. Joyce, who appeared for the defendant, said that
the charge rested upon the same evidence as that which
was adduced in the former case ; and after the verdict
that had been returned by the jury, he considered it
would be uselss to go over it again, and the defendant
would, therefore, by his advice, plead guilty.
The defendant, who, it was stated, had also up to this
time borne a good character as an officer, accordingly
pleaded guilty.
The Recorder said he should take time to consider
what sentence ought to be pronounced.