The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-14 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE sat in this Court this morning
for the purpose of hearing motions.
MANSLAUGHTER.—CharIes Wren, charged upon the
Coroner's Inquisition with the Manslaughter of James
Marsh, was brought up in order to be admitted to bail.
Mr. HOGGINS handed in the depositions taken by the
Coroner, from which it appeared that the deceased and the
defendant accidentally met near Bletchingley, in Surrey,
when the deceased challenged the latter to fight, and that
at length blows were exchanged between them, and after a
scuffle the deceased was thrown to the ground violently by
the defendant, and falling on his head injured his scull so
severely as to cause his death in a very few hours.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE ordered him to enter into recog-
nizances, himself in 601., and four sureties in 151. each.
The defendant having put in the required sureties, was
discharged from custody.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

THORNTON V. EYRES.

This was an application for a new trial, on the ground of
misdirection, and want of evidence. The case was tried at
York before Lord Chief Justice Denman, and a verdict
found for the defendant. The case was part heard on a
former day. The motion was granted.

EXPARTE GARCIA.

Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY said that he had to make an
application for a writ of habeas corpus, to bring up the
body of Abraham Garcia, a prisoner in the Fleet, on the
warrant of a subdivision of the Court of Bankruptcy. The
prisoner was a fruit-merchant, in a very considerable line of
business, which he carried on in Oxford-street. It appeared
that :in March last Garcia became a bankrupt, and in
June he was examined before the Commissioner, to
whom the fiat, according to the rota, was referred. This
Commissioner appeared to have called in two others, to
make what was called a sub-division Court. They exa-
mined the bankrupt, and adjudicated that his answers were
not satisfactory to them. Before he referred to the terms
of the examination, he could state that having perused it
he believed that there was nothing on the face of the exa-
mination on which there could be founded any thing like a
charge of discrepancy of statement, or of contradiction to
the story, from extrinsic testimony. The story, however,
which the bankrupt told, the Commissioners thought proper
not to believe. The main outline of the story was this :
The bankrupt was asked on the 3d of June whether on the
19th of February he was not possessed of 4501. The
answer was, that on that day he was possessed of that sum.
The bankrupt went on to state that on the evening of that
day he was passing from Oxford-street in an omnibus to
the City. He had been travelling all the night before
from Yarmouth, and having got into an omnibus, he fell
asleep. There were four or five other persons in the omni-
bus, one of whom wore a cloak, and sat by him. When he
awoke, he found his pocket ripped up, and the money gone.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—WhiIe in the omnibus?

Mr. Sergeant ATCHEALY—Yes. This was the outline
of the story—that Garcia had the money, that he was go-
ing to pay certain creditors—that in the omnibus he
lost the money ; and that he made complaints, on which the
commissioners said they did not believe the story, and therefore
they committed him to the Fleet. Now he contended that
a subject ought not to be imprisoned because, being liable
to the bankrupt laws, he was placed in a situation of telling
a story which might be true or might be false, about which
suspicions might or might not be entertained, and upon
which different opinions might be entertained by different
individuals. Lord Eldon said that the most difficult and
distressing part of the judicial duty was that which called
upon them to decide upon a bankrupt's examination, and
he could refer to a case which had come before two Courts,
when the Court of King's Bench thought the examination
a fiction, and the Court of Common Pleas was perfect-
ly satisfied with it. If a bankrupt refuse to answer,
it was a distinct offence; if to the questions put he answered
equivocally, it would be a matter upon which two judi-
cial minds would not differ ; if he had concealed and told
an account that was full of- discrepancies, it would of
course not be credited.

The COURT—Was the money in bank notes?
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY—Yes, and the bankrupt
wrote the day after he lost them to the person at Yar-
mouth, of the name of Wolff, from whom he received them,
for the numbers, and that he complained of the robbery to
the conductor and coachman of the omnibus.
The COURT—How long was it before the bankruptcy?
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY—The bankruptcy took place
on the 21st of March. There were two facts that might
be made matter of inquiry upon an issue, viz., first, that on
being asked whether, immediately after the robbery, he
wont to the man that drove th.) omnibus, he replied he
did, and that he took down the number of the omnibus on
a piece of paper, but that he lost the paper before the bank-
ruptcy ; and the other was, that the trousers which he wore
on the day of the robbery, and which were cut, had been
sold by him four days before the examination. Now he was
sorry to say that robberies in omnibuses were notoriously
very common. The bankrupt was.in a very awkward situa-
tion—if he adhered to his story he must remain in the
Fleet ; if he contradicted it he would be indicted for
perjury. He contended that the story told by the
bankrupt was very probable, and that the circumstances
of the case were not of such a suspicious character
as to justify the Commissioners in committing the
bankrupt. At all exents it was a matter of course that
this application should be granted, in order that the matter
might be. brought regularly before the Court.
• The application was granted, and the prisoner was or-
dered to be brought up on Monday next.

(London Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice PARKE
and a Common Jury.)
COOKE V. WRIGHT.

This was an action an a bill of Exchequer for 481. 15s. 6d.
The consideration—gooas sold and delivered in February
last to the defendant, a shopkeeper, residing in Preston in
Lancashire.—Verdict for the plaintiff.