The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

^.V ENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nor. 1.
' -^ OF JULIUS HUTCHINSON.

IN THE ItIATTn. n two former occasions.
this cee *as before the Court the credits,
The debts and liabilities adeeded, 85,0001., au..
'1
the i P u bad
good, bad, and doubtful, 12,000 . ttsolv,rit,
been in extensive practice as a solicitor, had been engaged by
several noble families. He had formerly been in partnership
with a Mr. Houldswortb. The principal opposition in the case
was on the ground that a debt had been contracted by the in-
solvent by means of a breach of trust. The complaining party
was the Rev. Charles Cobb Beresford; but the nominal cre-
ditor was. Robert Montgomery, Esq., executor of the late Sir
George Montgomery, Bart. An objection was takein to the
opposition on the former occasion, and a letter put in from
Mr. Montgomery, in which he disclaimed the opposition. The
Court, however, adjourned the case, in order that that gen-
tleman might be made acquainted with the circumstances of the
case, and an affidavit was read to-day, in which he retracted
his letter, and authorised the using of his name for the pur-
pose of justice.
The insolvent had acted as the attorney for Mr. Robert
,Montgomery, and had been concerned for the Rev. Charles
Cobb Beresford. In November, 1831, the insolvent received
from Messrs. Herries, the bankers of the deceased Baronet,
the sum of 8941., which sum, among other property, Mrs.
Beresford was entitled to under the will of her brother, the
late Sir George Montgomery. Of this sum the insolvent re-
mitted 7751., keeping back 1201. In April, 1835, he received
833/. on account of an acceptance and interest due to the
estate of the testators, and of that sum he informt d Mr. Beres
ford that he had only received 4001., and inquired the manner
which he should dispose of it. He was requested to deposit
the sum in the hands of Messrs. Cox and Greenwood, the
army agents, as the purchase money of a commission for one
of Mr. Beresford's sons. The insolvent deposited 300/., and
the Rev. Gentleman had, when acquainted with the circum-
stances, to pay the balance of 100/. These were the points
made against the insolvent, and the case against him was, that
a debt with the Rev. Mr. Beresford had been fraudulently
contracted by means of a breach of trust.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS, for the Rev. Gentleman, regretted the
position in which he was placed in opposing the insolvent : he
bad clearly incurred a debt by means of a breach of trust.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN adjudged the insolvent from the
date of his petition to an imprisonment of eighteen calends'
months for contracting a debt by means of a breach of trust ;
he was discharged as to his other creditors.

The judgetrint will be computed from August 16, 1837.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

Mr. Henry Flower, of Compton-place, Islington, applied
to the Lord MAYOR under the following circumstances in the
middle of last month :

He said that a few days previously he arrived in London
from Boulogne by the Magnet steam-packet, and that he was
informed by the Custom House officers on board the vessel
that he could receive his luggage as soon as it was deposited
in the baggage warehouse of the Custom House. Accord-
ingly he went on the following morning to the Custom House,
or rather to the warehouse on London Bridge Wharf. His
luggage, consisting of five packages, was searched and passed
by the examining officer, and a duty of 3s. was ordered to be
charged on some trifling article, which Mr. Flower proceeded
to pay, when the clerk demanded 53. 6d. Mr. Flower re-
quested to know the cause of the additional charge of the
2s. 6d., to which the clerk replied that he demanded it on the
,part of Messrs. Jackson and Knill, the wharfingers, it being
6d. on each package. Mr. Flower refused to pay the demand,
for which he could see no ground, and his goods were detained
in consequence.
The LORD MAYOI:—At what wharf ? and how did you
arrive ? _ _ _

Mr. Flower—At London Bridge 'Wharf, at two in the
afternoon.

The LORD MAYOR—Is the warehouse at London Bridge
Wharf used as a deposit one by the Custom House?

Mr. Flower—l think not.
The LORD MAYOR considered the charge of 6d. on each
package as a gross imposition, and he was at a loss to know
how it ever could have been suffered to be demanded under the
very eye of the Custom House authorities. His Lordship
then recommended Mr. Flower to apply to the Commissioners
of the Customs on the subject.
. .

Mr. Flower observed tha-t at the Custom HOuse itself no
charge was ever made on passengers' luggage arriving from
the continent. He believed that the present demand made
upon him was under pretence of paying for the warehouse at
London Bridge Wharf, which was nothing better than a
good sized stable, the parts appropriated for the passengers
and their luggage being exactly like lofts. The warehouse,
cranes and all, could not have cost anything like 1,0001, and
yet he was sure the public had ga.id up wards of 3,000/. for it,
and the imposition was still going on. He hoped the Lord
Mayor would grant him a summons for Messrs. Jackson and
Knill to show by what authority they detained his goods after
they had been passed by the Customs.
The LORD MAYOR said that he had every disposition to
serve Mr. Flower, but he could not grant a summons in a case
in which he could not see that he had uny jurisdietion.
Mr. Flower subsequently detailed the circumstances in a
memorial to the Commissioners of the Customs and -eceived
an answer, which is contained in The San of Wednesday.
Mr. Flower, determined to have satisfaction if any was to be
had, then wrote to the Lords of the Treasury, and he received
an answer, which also appeared in The San of Wednesday.
Yesterday the Lord Mayor, upon being informed that the
matter was under consideration by the Lords of the Treasury,
expressed the highest gratification that their Lordships hi.d
taken up the question, as in all probability some orders would
issue calculated to remedy what he certainly. looked upon as a
public. grievance, for he could not see why the luggage of pas-
sengers should be treated as goods coming promiscuously in
the way of merchandise to the wharf alluded to. The prompt
and effective course of inquiry into the conduct of certain indi-•
viduals of the Coast Guard instituted by order of the Lords of
the Treasury some months ago, led the public to expect that
similar expedition and energy would be used in the case sub-
mitted to them by Mr. Flower.
Sir PETER LAURIE handed to Mr. Hobler, the chief clerk,
his written judgment upon a question which had been brought
before him some days ago.
The circumstances were as follow :—A complaint was made
before Sir Peter Laurie by a person who received a parcel
from the Bell and Crown Inn, Holborn, which parcel, he con-
tended, ought to have been delivered from the Spread Eagle
Inn, Gracechurch-street. If the parcel had been delivered
from the latter place the cost would have been to him no more
than one-half of the cost to which he had been put, the coach
being in the custom of taking up parcels and receiving pas-
sengers at Gracechurch-street as well as at Holborn.
It was contended, upon the part of the coach proprietors,
that it was impossible for any coach to deliver parcels at every
place at which it stopped, and that the place of delivery was
the place at which the coach finally stopped, and where the
goods were sorted, and from whence they were delivered
within six hours after their arrival.

As the subject was considered one of import,nce and diffi-
culty by Sir Peter Laurie, he took time to consider it, and
yesterday he wrote down his decision in the following words:—
" There is considerable difficulty in this case, and as I can find
no decision on the point, it must be settled by the custom of
the trade, and as it appears to me, upon inquiry, that the cus-
tom is to charge porterage for parcels from the principal offices
throughout London where coaches put up, I am of opinion
that this charge must be allowed. The booking-offices are
for the receipt, and not for the delivery, of parcels, and the
public, therefore, have the advantage in one way, and the car-
riers in another."

Ruff, whose case appeared in the newspapers of yesterday,
keeps the Bell, in Bell-yard, Gracechurch-street.

BOW-STREET.

Mr. John Pook appeared at this office yesterday to answer
a charge of assault preferred against him by Mr. William Ar-
chibald Campbell, surgeon, residing in No. 23, Wilton-street.
Mr. MINSHULL, after hearing evidence, would call on the
defendant to find bail, and in fixing the amount it would
be necessary to: know what situation of life the defendant
was in.

The defendant was living on his private property.
Mr. MiNseum. then called upon him to enter into his own
recognizance for 2001., and find two sureties in 1001 each.
that he would keep the peace towards the complainant until
the Sessions, and likewise appear there to answer the charge
of assault. The sureties required were procured in the course
of the day.