The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-10 00:00:00

IN RE BIBBY AND DICKENSON.--JUDGMENT.

His 14oRnsiir proceeded with his judgment in this case.
Having resumed and-completed his exposition of the facts and
merits, he directed that the Commissioners should proceed to
make a dividend on such of the debts as were satisfactorily
proved, reserving the right of petition for the creditors whose
debts were still disputed, and also the question of costs, which
he would determine on another oceasion.
Mr. AGAR wished for time to consult with some of his clients.
before the judgment on the costs.
Mr. MONTAGUE said, that if his'LordShip were not urgent,
he would find that the post would travel very slow between
London and Liverpool for some time to come.
The LORD CHANCELLOR fixed the 13th inst. for giving his
judgment on that part of the case.

SIR CHARLES LONG IN THE MATTER OF,BROTHERS AND

LEATH, BANKRUPTS,

. .
Messrs, HEALD and CHING were Counsel for the Petitioner;
Messrs. ',CULLEN and MoNTAGH for the, Bankrupts; and
Mr. PARKER for the Assignee. - • •
The petition prayed, that the Treasurer or Deputy Trea•
surer might be•allowed to prove in this bankruptcy, in lieu of
the Commissioners of -Chelsea-Hospital ; that a new. choice of
assignees might be had, or that some person should be ap-
pointed as to-assignee, to take care of the interests, of the, par-
ties who were entitled to the prize-money, and that the bank.
rupts' certificate might be idayed. It was alleged that the sum
ef, 1,0 Q9ol.had been placed in the h.rdsof. Messrs, Brothers
and o. on behalf'af certain troops had-.made captures to
that intiountin India ; and' thatji,i,tten"aPPlicalibt was made
for the'satue by the :claimants,: 'that- st4rions:-subterfuges were
.resorted to, in order to withhold the property; -that on these
occasioni. it was pretended; -that the money had been re-
matted back to India, and on -the credit-of this statement,
that many poor fellows had been induced to leave this _coun-
try. On the parties, becoming insolvent, tlte Treasurer of
Chelsea 'Hospital applied to proVe .raider the ComniisSion,-
which the Bankrupt Commissioneis, after several adjourn-
ments, did not allow, conceiving,. that the Commisl4oners
of the Hospital were the only persons who could be legally
recognized in that capacity.
.In opposition to the petition
it was stated, that the _HoSpital;-, as a Corporate Body;
was not entitled. to withhold the certificate 'of the ,Banic-
rupts_, but that this power *as; by the Act, vested only in the
several individuals who claimed 'tinder the Commission ; that
no competent person attended -the Commissioners, or desired
leave to prove; that the Deputy Treasurer, Mr. ,I)ollard,. had
applied to prove a debt dire not to him Self, but to the Commis-
sioners of the Hospital:" upon which • the Commissioners of
Bankru,ptcy were of opinion, that in point of law he.could not
be pern4itted to examine either the bankrupts or their books.
It was also objected that the preient petition could not he sup-.
*ported, as it had not ;been regularly signed, in conformity with
his Lordship's order in bankruptcy, and tha; the affidavits in ,
support of it were irregular.
It was asserted that the bankrupts • had not' withheld any in-
formation required of them, and. that, therefore, their' certificate
could not be suspended. , .
The LORD CHANCELLOR promised to give judgment on
these different points to-morrow morning at the sitting of the
Court.

This case occupied nearly the whole of the day.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 9.
• • SIR WILLIAM OAT V. LORD NEWRY.
This was an action on the warranty of a horse, which the de-
fendant had sold to the plaintiff for seventy guineas.
So mc ITOR.GENERA r..conducted Ihe plaintiff's case;
and Mr. SCARLET T the defendant's.

It appeared, that Sir Simeon Stewart was riding the horse in
question, when Sir Wm. Ort first saw it. The latter being
pleased with the appearance of the animal, asked the'price of it ?
The sum of seventy guineas was agreed upon ; 4nd Sir Simeon
told the plaintiff, from Lord Newry, that the horse was per-
fectly quiet in harness. The defendant's groom told the plaintiff,
at,the time the horse was delivered, that his master would not
warrant any horse that he had §old. • The first day the horse
was driven out, when he had proceeded some distance, he be-
gan to kick, and at last broke one of the shafts of the vehicle to
which he was yoked. When the plaintiff informed the defend-
ant that the horse was not, according to agreement, quiet in
harness, the latter refused to take hin. back. The actionovas
now brought to recover the purchase money, and the expellees
incurred in keeping the horse, on the ground that the animal
had not fulfilled the warranty. ,
Mr. ScAnLETT, for the defendant, contended, that there
was no specific warranty on the part of the defendant, but, on
the contrary, his Lordship's groom had said; that his master
would not warrant the horse.

The CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up. the evidence, re-
marked to the Jury, that it was evident a warranty had been
given through the medium of Sir Simeon Stewart. • The only
question remaining-for them to decide was, whether the horse
had or had not fulfilled that warranty, by the circumstance of
kicking' when in lirriess ?
The Jury after a short consideration returned a verdict for
the plaintiff-=Damages 1031. Bs. ; costs 40s.

BEESTON v. CAMPBELL AND DOITGIIT Y.
This was an action against two surgeons, carrying on busi-
ness in partnership in the lEdgwartt-road, for so negligently con-
ducting themselves .respecting a dislocation of the plaintiff's
shoulder,_ that she was deprived of the use of her arm.
The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. GURNEY and
Mr. CHITTY; the defendant's by Mr. Scan LETT and Mr.
ROBERT SCARLETT. • _

It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff, a dressmaker by
trade, and between .50 and BO years .of age, fell down, and had
the misfortune to dislOcate her shoulder. This was not known
at the time; but finding it in pain,' she consulted Mr. Camp-,
bell, and went several times to hik house.; when he advised with,
her, and gave her, lotions to apply. Afte,r some time she went
to another surgeon, Mr. Heddington, who discovered that her
shoulder was dislocated, and that by the 'delay the reduction•
had become difficult and dangerous. She therefore .did
not submit to an operation, but continued deprived of the
Use of her arm. Mr. Ileddington wrotetio defendant, Camp-
bell; but received no answer. That gentleman, Mr. Chevalier,
and Mr. Wood, gave their opinion that the mode adopted by
Mr. Campbell of discovering whether there was dislocation was
uncertain, and that they would liaVe adopted other. means of
inquiry.
Mr. SCARLET T addressed the Jury for the defendants,,
urging that Mr. Campbell had no interest in maltreating the
case, but strongly the reverse • that his attention had not been
drawn to the case as one of dislocation, and that, at last, the

plaintiff might have recovered the use of her arm by submitting
to an operation which she did not choose to encounter.
The Lonn CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and
the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1001.