The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCI2'EQUER, June 2.
(Sittings in Banco.)
NEW TRIAL PAPER.
WAKE .1( V. HEALEY AND COOKE.

This was an action of I.bel, in which the plaintiff, who
is the son of the coroner for Middlesex, and attached ti
the Royal Free Hospital, Gray's Inn-lane, end practis•
ing in London, sought to recover compensation for cer-
tain libels, published by the defendants in the Medical
Times, of which work they were joint proprietors. The
declaration alleged that the plaintiff was a surgeon and
member of the Royal College of Surgeons, having the
power under its charter and byclews to expel its mem-
bers for unprofessional conduct; and it went on to allege,
that the defendants published of and concerning the
plaintiff certain libels, imputing to him that he had been
guiity of unprofessional conduct in publishing " puff-
ing advertisements of his operations at the hospital
the Times, in the shape of advertisements of the con-
tents of the forthcoming number of the Lancet, in
which accounts would be given of the operations in ques•
tion, and their highly successful result." This conduct
ebge
guilty,"
th
e
college,
a nd
the libels alleged to be such as would subject the plain-
tiff to be ex
college, which were stated to confer such power of ex-
expelled
eufennddearntth tas pd e charterd n ,
not y
a power of expulsion as was al-
leged in the declaration ; and at the close of the case
havingpex-
pulsion.i io n
traversed
suchTh that
t the plaintiff was member of a college
The
for the plaintiff, Hr. Healey, who conducted the de-
fence in person, submitted that on the second plea the
defendants were entitled to a verdict, as there was no
evidence that the College of Surgeons had the alleged
power of expulsion. The Chief Baron, however, in-
clined to think, with the plaintiff, that the statements in
tl.e libels themselves might be taken as evidence of the
fact there alleged as against them, and the case having
gone to the jury a verdict was returned for the plaintiff,
with 40s. damages. Afterwards this rule for a new trial
was moved for by Mr. Healey, on the ground that there
ought to have been some
other evidence given by the
plaintiff in support of this issue; and now,
Mr. Martin and Mr., Bramwell were heard in opposi-
tion
topretehad furerule; Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Dears-
ley Mr. Healey, and Mr. Mills for the de-
fendant Cooke.
h
The COURT, however, refused to hear the latter gen-
tleman,was, in fact, no party to it. All that the
Court could do was to take from the Learned Gentleman
him,
his a
clip s though
not u g notice of the rule had been served on
his assent, on behalf of Mr. Cooke, to the rule being
made absolute for a new trial.
Sir F. Pou.ccic, in the course of the case, said that he
thought he had fallen into an error at the trial in attrl-
buting such weight to the statement in the libel. His
Lordship thought now that there ought to have been
distinct evidence by the plaintiff of the byelaw and
charter. If there was no such byelaw the libel was not
of so important a character, and the case, in his opinion,
ought to go down again.
The COURT, however, did not at once pronounce any
formal opinion, but intimated that judgment would be
given on Monday next.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT, June 2.
The Hon. Adolphus Frederick Capel (brother to Lord
Essex) applied under the Protection Act, and was op.
posed on the part of 44 creditors.
Mr. Dowse and Mr. Sargood represented 38; Mr.
Bagley appeared as counsel for twc; and four were in
person. Mr. Cooke and Mr. Sturgeon supported the
application.

The h
sc edule filed by the insolvent, now 36 years old,
was of considerable dimensions. The debts in the ag-
gregate were 32,1991., of which no consideration was
received for 6,6321., and were railway liabilities, and
420/. were more tha once entered, leaving the bona fide
debts from 1841 25,146/. There were no debtors, and
only about 401. to be given up to the creditors, number-
ing in the schedule 221. The insolvency was attributed
to the great loss sustained on the sale of furniture at
Theydeu House, Epping; to railway liabilities, and to
the failure of the accustomed receipts from friends. He
had been in the receipt of 300/. a year from his brother,
and his wife's father, Lord Maynard, made him a gra-
tuitous allowance of 6001. His income over the period
of his schedule had been 9001. a year.
On the case bei o ened,
an application was made
on the part of the insolvent that it might be adjourned,
and one of the reasons urged was, that as nearly fifty
creditors opp°aed, and no previous notice had been
given, time should be allowed. The application was not
assented to on the other side, and as many creditors
were in attendance from Ep ing' the Chief Commissioner
directed the case to proceepd, declaring that it must be
heard as a common and ordinary matter. The Court
was crowded at the time. The insolvent underwent a
long examination. It appeared, from his evidence, that
his debts amounted to the sum already stated, to meet
which he had only 40/., arising from the valuation of
some property, Ile had incurred his debts in about
seven years, during which time he had derived his al-
lovrance of about 9001. a year, but there was no settle-
ment. The allowances were continued, but could be
stopped at any moment, lie was married in 1835,
when no settlement was made. In 1842 he
took Theyden House at Epping, where he had
continued till last
year. He had expended a
good deal of money for repairs on the house, and
now owed money on the same account. The furniture,
plate, &c., had cost him about 10,000/., one half of which
was laid out in furniture. There waa 544/. at present
owing for furniture. lie was forced to leave is May last
year, as several executions followed. A seizure under
a bill of sf4lQ he had given to kidr. Chard, for 1,8004,

money lent. The bill of sale was given in February,
1847, and the sale was in May, 1848, and in the interval
he had contracted various debts; among the re:•t, a
debt for a dressing-case, &e., and jewellery, and had not
paid any money to the two particular creditors. On
being asked the reason be had ❑ot submitted to the ju-
risdrcticn of the Court whilst he had property, he said
he wished he had done so. Some of his friends advised
him and some advised him not to do so. The result of
the executions was that he was left without property.
He had omitted to state in his account 5001. he had
borrowed from a money lender, and which had been
repaid by the sale at Epping. He had a town
residence in Park-street, for which house he paid
3201 a year, and which he only occupied during
the "season;" and on being asked the time " the
seasons" lasted, he said, from " April to June," and he
let it during the remainder of the year. The property
at They-de u House, which had cost about 10,0001., was
sold for 3,815/. 10s. 21, and several executions were
discharged, as well as the debt of 1,8001. Since he left
Epping he had used various names for concealment, such
as Cooper, Clifford, Cuthbert, and Ceymour, always
using Inc letter " C," as his linen was marked with that
initial. He had filed his petition under the Protection
Act, whilst residing at Ebury-streer, Pimlico, where he
passed wider one of the assumed nau.es.
The case having occupied more thln two hours, an
adjeurnment was proposed, so as to enable the creditors
to return to the country, and it was stated that, as it was
then three o'clock, it would be impossible to conclude it
in one dray. It was arranged that it should be adjourned
to Thursday next, and the insolvent had his protection
renewed until that day.
The case created a good deal of interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARYLEBONE.

Mr. George Brocklehurst, a Quaker, describing himself
as a cotton-threader, residing at Stockport, was brought
before Mr. Long, charged with having defrauded the
London and North-Western Railway Company, under
the circumstances below stated:—

Mr. Penson, ticket-collector at the Camden station,
deposed that on the previous evening, at seven o'clock,
upon the arrival of a third-class train, he went to the
different carriages to colleet the tickets, and on asking
the prisoner for his, he said that he had none, neither
had he any money. He was further questioned by wit-
ness, when he replied that he had travelled from Stock-
port, and had an idea that he should meet some one in
London who would perhaps be disposed to pay for him.
This story not being at all satisfactory, he was given into
the custody of a guard, and conveyed by him to the
Euston terminus, where he was detained for a time by
the proper authorities, and ultimately locked up at the
station-house. _ _

Inspector Dolby, of the Railway Police, said that he
left the prisoner on the company's premises nearly two
hours in hopes that he would be able to think of some
one to whom be could apply for the sum due from him,
viz., 15s. 2id.; he, however, could not name any one who
would be likely to get him out of his trouble; be was
searched, and all that he had upon him was an old razor
and a small knife.

Mr. LONG (to the prisoner)—What have you to say to
this ? Prisoner—When I set off I bad no intention of
defrauding the company, nor have I now. I thought it
not unlikely that I might on my arrival in town see a
friend upon the !platform, or, if not, that I might per-
haps find out somebody in the city who would assist me.
Mr. LONG—What are the names of the persons to
whom you allude ? Prisoner—l can't recollect any of
them.

Mr. LONG gave him to understand that his conduct
was altogether of a must dishonest and reprehensible
nature, and in default of his paying the amount claimed
he was committed for seven days.