The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 7.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr.

Justice COLERIDGE and a Speciai Jury.)

Several special jurors not answering to their names
were fined .51. each.

DAVIS V. HASSALL AND TARRANT.

Hr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Brown were counsel
for the plaintiff; and Air. Huenfrey and Mr. Hugh
Hill for the defendant.

This was an action for false imprisonment, to which
a justification was pleaded. The defendants were
clothiers and slopsellers in Bedford-place, and the
plaintiff had been in their employ as a commercial
agent or travellor, at 355. a week travelling expenses,
and one per cent. commission. On the 26th of
January last the defendants caused the plaintiff to be
apprehended on a charge of embezzlement. Tarrant
and a policeman went to the plaintiff's house early in
the morning, and took him into custody. The plain-
tiff when taken asked Tarrant vault it meant. Tar-
rant said he would have no conversation with the
plaintiff, and he was taken to the police-station, which
was two miles off. They walked to the station. The
policeman as they were walking along told the plain-
tiffit was an unfortunate position for him to be placedin.
The plaintiff said it was not, for he should be able to
clear it all up. At the station Tarrant charged the
plaintiff with having embezzled various sums of money
belonging to him and his partner. The plaintiff was
locked up at the station for three or four hours in the
general cell. The policeman went with Tarrant to
different places to get up the evidence. They returned
between one and two o'clock, and Davis was then
taken before the magistrate at the Thames Police-
court; he was remanded. Hassell was also at the
police -court. Mr. Pelham attended as the attorney
on the part of the prosecution. A few days after-
wards the plaintiff was brought from the House of
Detention to which he had been committed, and again
examined before the magistrates, when he was again
committed to Newgate for trial. The plaintiff was
afterwards tried at the Old Bailey. Several witnesses
were examined for the prosecution, but the plaintiff
was acquitted. When the policeman went to the
plaintiff s house to apprehend him he was in plain
clothes ; the plaintiff's wife said her husband was not
at home, and had not been at home all night ; but the
policeman went up stairs and found the plaintiff dress-
ing himself in his bed•rootn. A Mr. Wells, an attor-
ney, appeared for the plaintiff on the second exami-
nation before the magistrate, and advised the plaintiff
not to say anything. Upon this intimation the
plaintiff's friends, who were present, refused to become
bail for him. Tye attorney's charges defending the
plaintiff at the 011 Bailey were 11/ 6s. &I The
prisoner said to the policeman when taking him to
the station, "This is the very thing I want; I c^.n
play with them now."
For the defendants it was admitted that the I,ber'y
of the subject should never be lightly dealt The
plaintiff, although he was at first very attentive to
business, afterwards became negligent and carele,,s,
giving occasion for complaint, and on the 14th of
January he was discharged; upon which he said,
" Then I shall go home and make myself safe ;" and
he then made out an account, making himself a debtor
for different sums he had received, but had not handed
over. This account the plaintiff produced when he
was taken into custody. It was urged that the de
fondants were fully justified in prosecuting the plain-
tiff, and would be entitled to their verdict.
Witnesses were called, from whose testimony it ap•
peered that on the 30th of December the plaintiff re-
ceived from a customer of the defendant's 141. 103.
odd, and he had also received other sums. The
plaintiff had pressed for a settlement of the account
between himself and the defendants, but it was post-
poned. These sums did not appear in the books, but
they were inserted in the account delivered by the
plaintiff on his being taken into custody, and by that
account the defendants were made debtors to the
plaintiff in a sum of 151. There had not been a set-
tlement between the plaintiff and the defendants since
the previous June.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE summed up the case to the
jury.

The jury retired, and at length returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damtige9, one farthing.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 7.

WOOD V. HUTTON AND ANOTHER.
(Continued from oar Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The CHIEF BARON, in the course of his summing up,
said he entirely concurred with an observation which
WA3 made by Sir Frederick Thesiger, that the verdict
must be that of the jury, and not of the Judge. He had
nothing to do with it either on cne side or the other, and
he thanked God that this was so in such a case as the
present. llis Lordship then went through the evidence
in detail, and said if they were of opinion that Captain
Newman was not of sound or disposable mind at the
time of thp. settlement with the defendants on 30th of
Jan., 1838, they would find a verdict for the plaintiff ;
it; on the other hand, they thought he was perfectly sane
and capable of understanding what he was about, their
verdict woull be for the defendants.
The jury interrupted his Lordship before ho had con-
cluded, to say, that they wished to give him as little
trouble as possible, as they had already made up their
ai ids as to what the verdict should be.
The CHIEF BARON said, that being so, he would only
make a few brief observations and then conclude. .

The jury, immediately upon the conclusicn of the
summing up, said they had found a verdict for tho de-
fendants.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 7.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROTD.)
IN RE DRLAFIELD.
Mr. LAWRBNCE applied to the Court under the fol-
lowing circumstances :—The bankrupt was the lessee
of the Royal Italian Opera. A short time previous to
his bankruptcy he had executed, in conjunction with
Mr. Arthur Webster, a deed of assignment in favour
of Mr. T. F. Beale, of certain property at Willow
Bank-house, and arrears of subscriptions due to the
lessee of the Opera. Messrs. Farebrother, as auc-
tioneers for Mr. Beale, had realised a sum of about
9,0001. by a sale of the property at Willow Bank-
house. The bankrupt's assignees had preferred a
claim upon the amount, and proceedings had been
instituted before the Vice-Chancellor upon the sub-
ject. The result was that, acting under the advice of
counsel, the assignees were desirous of accepting a
sum of 1,0001. in liquidation of any claim they might
have upon the property rather than incur the heavy
costs and uncertainty attendant upon a Chancery
suit. The amount of arrears of Opera subscriptions
was not more than 4001., and this was the property
upon which the assignees considered they had the
strongest claim. He applied to the court, under the
153.1 section of the new Act, to sanction this arrange-
ment by the assignees.
His Honoust said, the 153 d section had reference
only to the case of claims by assignees upon debtors
belonging to the bankrupts' estate. He could not
therefore make any order upon the subject. Under
the authority, however, of the general powers with
which he was invested, he felt justified in remarking
that he thought the assignees would take the
proper course to carry out the suggested arrangement.
IN RE DRVIRL.
Mr. DUNCAN applied to the Court in an insolvency
case that took place in 1842. The insolvent had been
an undergraduate of Cambridge University. lie had
obtained his final order. Ilis relations had effected an
arrangement with a portion of the creditors, and were
desirous of paying 20s. in the pound upon the remain-
ing outstanding debts. He applied that in such case
the insolvent's petition might be taken off the file of
the court.
Ilis lloNoult said, he could not permit the petition
to be thus wholly removed.
Mr. DUNCAN then applied that a dividend meeting
be granted, and that the creditors should be required
to come and prove as in bankruptcy.
His HONOUR acceded to this application.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
IN RE T. S. STORY—TULE ST. ALRAN'S RANK.
This was the certificate meeting. The bankrupt
was described as a banker at St. Alban's. He had
commenced business in 1804, in partnership with Mr.
Cooper, who died in 1807; he afterwards joined Mr.
Martineau ; that partnership was dissolved in 1829, and
the affairs were thrown into Chancery. A compro-
mise was made, by which, the bankrupt alleged,
he had incurred considerable loss. He had subse-
quently carried on business alone till the date of the
fiat, December, 1848, when he owed to unsecured
creditors 11,014/., to secured creditors 4,2831. A
dividend of ss. in the pound has since been paid, and
there will be a further dividend of a few shillings in
the pound. The capital on the Ist January, 1840,
was put down at 3,542/., the domestic and personal
expenses at 19,1001, or at the rate of nearly 2,0001.

a year.
Mr. E. JAMES now opposed the certificate on behalf
of Mr. Marett, who had proved for 1,5171. His op-
position was not vindictive, but was in Mr. Marett's
character of executor to the Rev. C. Loma; whose
rectorial tithes of 5001. per annum Mr. Story had
received in his character of attorney for some years.
The circumstances of the case, he (Mr. James) sub-
mitted, involved a breach of trust on the part of the
bankrupt. Upon being sued for the amount in his
hands, 1,5171., he had subjected Mr. Marett to the
expense of 331. by raising groundless objections to the
claim, and by putting in a false plea. It was ascer-
tained, by an inspection of the books, that the bank-
rupt had received 1051.75. Bd. subsequent to the death
of the testator.