The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-18 00:00:00

LAW IN TELLIGEN CE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, May 17.
(.Before Commissioners Evaxs, FARE, and Saar-
HERD.)

IN RE BEADLE, A BUILDER.

The above Court was held respecting a sum of
1901., which the bankrupt had to account for. He
had (as we understood)
,gone to a friend and ob-
tained the receipt for the sum of 1901., as though money
lo that amount had passed between them, when, in
paint of fact, it had not, and, upon being examined
as to what he had to say about the transaction, he
admitted that be had got his friend to oblige him with
the receipt, no consideration having passed between
them, and that he could not account for the 1901.
The Learned COMMISSIONERS were unanimously of
opinion that the bankrupt should stand committed.
The order of committal was then made out, and
the bankrupt placed in the custody of Mr. Cooper,
the messenger.
(Before Mr. Commissioner PANE.)
IN RE T. N. KERR.
The bankrupt, a miller and merchant, described as
of Biggleswade, Bedford, and Ilolme Mills, came up
.on the balance-sheet, prepared by the official assignee
(.Mr. Cannan), to pass his last examination. The
ba.lanee•sheet embraced. a period of one year, and
showed the debts and liabilities to amount to 9,7601.,
2,0061. of which was contracted by the bankrupt's
late partner, and 2,0001 on account of the firm. The
assets ate—good debts, 8561.; doubtful 505/. ; and
property, 1,9271.
His HONOUR having expressed his satisfaction with
the accuracy of the accounts, the bankrupt passed.
(Before .Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
IN RE ROBERT JONES.
The bankrupt, described as of Castle-street, Hol-
born, commission agent, came up to pass his last ex-
amination.
Mr. Duncan supported the bankrupt, and Mr.
Lucas opposed, on the ground that the accounts were
unvouched, and that there no assets.
HIS HONOUR adjourned the case sine die, granting
protection for three months, with liberty to apply
again.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS and a full Bench o
Magistrates.)
Yesterday, Richard Evans, a somewhat elderly
man, of gentlemanly appearance, and an artist by
profession, surrendered to take his trial upon an in-
dictment charging him with having assaulted and
wounded Mr. John Prescott Knight, R A., and
secretary to the Royal Academy.
Mr. Clarkson appeared for the Royal Academy,
and Mr. Bodkin for the defendant.
On being arraigned the defendant pleaded Guilty.
The particulars of the case were a snort time ago
given in our police intelligence. The defendant, it
will be remembered, called at the Royal Academy in
reference to the rejection by the president and council
of some pictures he had sent in for this year's exhi-
bition, and, on seeing the secretary, made use of an
insulting epithet, and struck him a blow on the head
-with a stick, inflicting a severe contusion on the
upper part of the forehead.
Bonilla, addressing the Court, said that he
appeared on behalf of the defendant, who was a gen-
tleman of some reputation as an artist, and of high
honour and respectability. Taking into considera-
tion the evidence upon which the magistrate acted in
sending this case to this court, he (Mr. Bodkin) felt
that the defendant had no legal defence to the charge,
and he had recommended the defendant, therefore to
adopt the course he had just taken of pleading guilty
to the indictment. Of course, nothing could justify
the defendant's conduct in strikingl Mr. Knight, but
the defendant was anxious to address some observe
tions to the Court to palliate in some way his offence,
and there were present a number of gentlemen, one
of whom was Mr. M. D. Hill, Q.C., who would speak
to the high and gentlemanly character always borne
by the defendant.
Mr. CLABKSON Slid that he did not quite compre-
hend what his friend Mr. Bodkin meant when he said
that the defendant had no legal defence to this very
serious, and, he must say, aggravated charge, for, as
far as he could see, there was an entire absence of
everything that legally or morally could afford any
palliation or excuse for the gross conduct of the defend-
ant is making an unprovoked and unwarrantable assault
upon the secretary of the Royal Academy. His actua-
ting motives had their origin in the rejection by the
council of some works of art which the defendant
was anxious to have exhibited to the public under
their sanction. Such conduct was not to be tolerated
in this country, and he trusted that the Court, be-
fore it acted upon what the defendant might urge on
his own behalf, or on the evidence of those whore be
might call to his character, would refer to the deposi-
tions, or have Mr. Knight examined, so that it might
learn fully the particulars connected with the affair' •
and, in dealing with the defendant, the Court would,
he felt confieent, feel bound to make an example of a
person who had conducted himself in the unjustifiable
manner the defendant had.
Mr. BODKIN said, he very much regretted that the
observations that had fallen from his Learned Friend
evinced none of that feeling of consideration which
a public body like the Royal Academy might be ex-
pected to exhibit towards a gentleman who, in a mo-
ment of excitement, was betrayed into a breach of
the law. He must say that his friend's observations
were of an extremely severe chtracter.
Mr. cLARKSON understood that what the defendant
had to urge in palliation was to assert that Mr.
Knight applied language to him which, unquestion-
ably he applied to Mr. Knight.
Mr. Sergeant ADAMS told the defendant that he
was at liberty to address any observations he pleased
to the Court, but he had looked at the depositions, and
must say that whatever the defendant might say
could only be of service to him if said in a spirit of
apology.
The defendant then handed in a written document,
in which he most solemnly denied that the assault he
had been guilty of was in any way a premeditated one,
or that it arose from any feeling of resentment at
the council having exercised their right tc reject the
pictures he had sent in, but from a feeling of indig-
nation, and in a moment of excitement consequent
upon the prosecutor having applied the epithet of
" scoundrel" to him. He then went on to state
that on the 27th of April he received from
Mr. Knight a circular requesting him to fetch
away his pictures as the Council had declined to
admit them to the exhibition. Not thoroughly
understanding it, he called at the Academy, and as
the circular bore the signature of Mr. Knight, asked
to see him, with the view of having the nature of it
explained. When Mr. Knight appeared he produced
the circular and asked its meaning. Mr. Knight's
answer was, that it was the usual circular sent to
artists whose pictures were rejected, and upon being
pressed for a further explanation, Mr. Knight told
him to go and ask in another room. He (the defend.
ant) then said, as Mr. Knight was the secretary and
servant of the company he ought to be able to explain
himself what was issued with his signature. Upon
that Mr. Knight took hold of the circular, and threw
it from him with great indignation, saying that he
was not the servant of the Academy, and that he (the
defendant) was a "dirty scoundrel" to say so. Mr.
Knight was about to leave the room, when, irritated
at the epithet that had been used to him, and without
consideration, the defendant raised his stick and struck
him on the head. He denied that he held the stick
by the thin end to strike with the thick one. He was
quite aware that Mr. Knight denied having used the
word "scoundrel," but he bttributed to error, anti
not to wilful falsehood, that denial. He said that it
was apparent that Mr. Knight had but an imperfect
recollection of what took place, and those witnesses
who gave evidence as to who first used the word
" scoundrel" were mistaken, if they were guided
alone by the sound of the voice (not being in the
room), and they might not have recognised Mr.
Knight's voice, as he spoke in an exasperated tone.
He begged, in conclusion, the merciful consideration
of the Court.
Mr. Sergeant ADAMS directed Mr. Knight to be
sworn, and he then asked him, on his solemn oath,
whether he used the epithet "scoundrel" to the de-
fendant ?
Mr. Knight positively denied the assertion. He
believed that the defendant used the words "filthy
scoundrel" to him.
Mr. CLARKSON said that the defendant's palliation
was imputing to Mr. Knight that which was not true.
The Learned Juane said that he could plainly see
how the affair stood. The defendant was an artist,
and, having some favourite production, he was anxious
to get it into the exhibition. No doubt he thought it
was a very grand work (and he by no means in-
sinuated that it was not), but those who did produce
great works were oftentimes denied that success they
perhaps deserved; but because the defendant was dis-
appointed in his wish to get his pictures hung on the
walls of the Royal Academy he was not justified in
assaulting the secretary, as he had done Mr. Knight.
The effect of the document the defendant had handed
in was to aggravate the offence, and had he evinced a
proper spirit of contrition no doubt the Royal Aca-
demy would have been disposed to have the case dealt
with leniently. Considering the defendant's position in
life, the Court would not send him to prison, but at the
same time it would impose such a fine as would mark
the case as one of which an example should be made.
Tne sentence was that the defendant pay to the Queen
a fine of 251, and that he enter into his own recogni •
zance in the sum of 401, with one surety in 201., to
e" keep the peace for six months.
.'4" Tee fine was paid, and the recognizances having
ti been entered into, and the surety given, the de:entlant
was liberated.
A number of gentlemen connected with the Royal
Academy and the arts were present, and the case ap-
peared to excite great interest.

e

Lord Ribbltaisle hes arrivad in town from the Ccn.