The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-20 00:00:00

Mil lavit, upon which the tresent application was founded,
stated that the defendant had been in cuitudy since
1841 (eight years a,;,0) for e debt, including costs, of
921. In 1841, the plaintiff, Clemente Camp, left this
country in company with her daughter, m order to
avoid trio prucc2ediogs of her creditors, her affairs at the
time being in an insolvent st4te. it appea-, d
that she was sixty-five year 3 of age, and was
then and had been for some ) eats in bed
health. The defendant had received information that
she was seen at Ilamburgh in 1843. Ste went aft:. r-
wards to St. Petersburgb, and a merchant in that city
had told the defendant that she left St. Petershurgh fyr
Moscow, and it was reported shy had died on the road,
the severity of the climate being very injurious to
foreigners, and frequently fatal to persons in ill health.
A search, as recetweended.by the Chief Justice, had been
made at the Prerogative-office, but neither had any
will been filed nor any letters of administration taken out.
The COURT granted a rule nisi, and requested that it
Alight be served upon the defendant's attorney.

BERRY V. IRWIN.
This wag an action upon two bill of exchange drawn
by a person named Ile!comb, and accepted by the de-
fendant, and it was tried at the hat surrey assizes,
when a verdict was found for the plaintiff. Judgment
was signed, and the defendant was C,llSiglied to custody
in the Queen's Bench prison, Prinz.° he now runsdns.
A rule to show cause why he should nut be set at
liberty, on the ground that he had been di,ichar4i.d
under the Insolvent Debtors' Act, having been obtained,
it came on for argument a few days back.
The CHIEF JUSTICI;, in delivering judgment, now
said that the Court were of opinion that the defendant
was entitled to his discharge. The defendant, it ap-
peared, had inserted both the hills in his schedule, in the
name of the plaintiff, and also of Meicons"), but disputed
the right of either of them to the amount, on the ground
thit he had received no consideration for the bills. The
defendant having obtained his discharge from all the
debts in the schedule, it appeared to the Court that the
adjudication of his case by the Commissioner applief to
the present debt. It appeared also to the Court, that
his diecharge applied as well to the costs of this applica-
tion. The rule must, therefore, be made absolute, with
costs.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
COLCHESTER TOWN COU NCIL.
Mr. COWLING moved for a rule nisi to show cause why
an information in the nature of a quo. warranto should
not be filed against Mr. Partridge, ."equiring him to
establish his right to a seat in the town council of
the borough of Colchester. He made the mo-
tion on the ground that Mr. Partlsidge was unduly
elected by votes in his favour having icon improperly
received, and votes against him improperly rejected. It
appeared by the affidavits that Colchetrter is divided into
three wards, known as the first, secor,,d, and third, and
on the 18th of November tham was a vacancy for two
councillors in the second ward. At itlie election there
were four candidates, namely, Messrs. Pcgp,
Partridge, Daniel, and Ramstrsnal Mr. Peggy
bad the highest number of votes ;and was declared
duly elected; but Messrs. Partridge and Daniel having,
the same number of votes; the assessor and presiding
alderman gave a casting vote is favoir:.'of Mr:Partridge,
and ho was then tieclarol dtily elcr ,t 04... Two votes,
_ however, fippeareil on Mr. Partridgq';s list, vidlich ought
to have been rejected; the first was t.l ,at of one George
Barrel, who had placed his mark upotn,the voting paper
required by. the Act, being .unatkive to write, hut,
the paper represented it to be the mark of -.Burrel
George instead of George Burrel. The next note clo-
jected to was that of a Mr. Childs, who appeared upon
the burgess roll in respect of a house in Middleborough,
tut inn—his voting paper he had. `"erroneously described
himself as of North Hill, , a street that ran
into Middleborough. The . tiara and list vote
to be discussed in the case, was th at of a Mr. Hallowas,
who tendered his vote in favour of Mrl.llaniel, but it
was struck off that gentleman's:, list, on the ground
that -the voting paper repreite uted the burgess
to live in a street in the pi iriih of ' St. Peter's,
whereas the street was in the parish of Lexton, but
the Municipal Act required that tk,e street only should
be described in the voting paper; and, therefore, suo-
posing tLe parish was wrung, it did not invalidate the
vote, and it, therefore, ought not, to have been rejected.
Mr. Justice PATTESON granted. :a rule on the two last
grounds.