The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-05 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

CRIMINAL CASES RESERVED.-MRS. MANNING'S CASE.
We were informed, at the rising of the Court, that
notices bad been forwarded by direction of the Lord
Chief Baron, intimating to the Attorney- General,
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, and Mr. Ballantine—the last
named of whom it will be in the recollection of our
readers appeared as counsel on behalf of Mrs. Manning
at her trial, together with her husband, at the Central
Criminal Court, whilst the Learned Sergeant was
counsel for the husband only, and the Attorney-
General conducted the prosecution—that the Court
sitting to hear and consider arguments in "Criminal
cases reserved" would on Wednesday morning next
hear counsel on the point reserved by his Lordship
on the trial, as to whether Mrs. Manning, being a
foreigner by birth, was entitled to be tried by a jury
"de medietate lingua," or whether that right had been
lost to her by her marriage to a husband of English
birth.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. Nov. 3.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fane.)
IN THE MATTER OF EDWARD THOMAS DELAFIELD9S
BANICRUPTCY.-THE ROYAL ITALIAN OPERA.
This was an adjourned meeting for the proof of
debts, and the last examination of the bankrupt, late
lessee of the Royal Italian Opera.
Mr. Lloyd, of the firm of Ford and Lloyd, ap-
peared on behalf of Mr. Pearce, manufacturer of
stove grates and fenders, No. 5, Jermyn-street, Re-
gent-street. to support a proof for 502/, for goods
supplied to' the bankrupt, and Mr. Arthur Webster,
t Willow-bank House, Fulham. Mr. Lewis ap-
_ eared for the bankrupt, and Mr. Lawrance for the
assignees. The case was appointed for hearing at
eleven o'clock ; but owing to a delay of the Commis-
sioner in taking his seat, the proceedings did not
commence until the hour of twelve. It may be re-
collected, from the report of the case that appeared
in The Sun, that on the bankrupt's coming of age, in
1845, he became entitled to a sum of 100,0001. under
the will of his late uncle, Mr. Edward Delafield, and
that- after the payment of certain debts contracted
during his minority, he was left in possession of a
clear capital of 92,382/. He subsequently became
lessee of the Royal Italian Opera, which responsi- I

bility terminated in April last, with unsecured debts
to the amount of 33,3371., and no assets.
Mr. LAWRANCE objected to the prouf tendered by
Mr. Pierce, on the ground that it was on a judgment
obt lined against the bankrupt and Mr. Arthur
Webster, on a joint debt for goods supplied to Willow-
bank House. He relied upon ex parte Field, in
which the Vice-Chancellor Sir Knight Bruce decided
that, in case of a joint debt, the creditor could not
prove except for the purpose of voting in the choice
of assignees against one partner whilst another was
in solvent circumstances. In this case there was no
partnership strictly speaking, but it was a joint debt.
Mr. LEWIS objected to the proof altogether, on the
ground that the goods had been supplied to Webster
solely, and that the judgment against Mr. Webster
and the bankrupt jointly had been obtained during
the absence of Mr. Delafield on the Continent.
The COMMISSIONER said he had no jurisdiction to
reverse a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, and
the proof could not be rejected on this ground.
Mr. LEWIS then supported the view urged by Mr.
Lawrence, and referred to a similar decision by his
Honour Vice-Chancellor Shadwell.
Mr. LLOYD referred the court to a different decision
by Sir John Cross, the Chief Commissioner of the Court
of Review in ex parte Crossfield, re Samuel Cooper,
as reported in 2 Montague and Ayrton, 543. There
was no actual partnership between Mr. Webster and
the bankrupt, and the decision of Vice Chancellor
Sir Knight Bruce only applied to a case of actual
partnership, and not to one of a mere joint liability.
The decision of his Honour Vice-Chancellor Shad-
well was similarly irrelevant to the case before the
court. Here Mr. Webster was not a trader, or liable
to the bankruptcy laws.
The COMMISSIONER said he could not reconcile the
conflicting decisions. The main principle of the
bankrupt law was to effect an equal distribution of
the assets of the bankrupt. The judgesa had, in the
main, adhered to the law, the object of which was to
throw the creditor on the solvent partner, and thereby
to diminish the loss of the body of creditors. This
had been the course generally pursued during the
last hundred years, and the last decision had been in
accordance therewith. He should, therefore, decide
that Mr. Pierce could not prove. As to the other
point, that of his right to prove for the purpose of
voting in the choice of assignees, he must disallow
that also. The proof was consequently disallowed
altogether.
It was stated in court that this decision would
affect the claims of four or five other creditors under
precisely similar circumstances, whose debts amount
to upwards of 4,0001.
Mr. LAWRANCE said that the main facts of the
present case, as developed in the accounts so satisfac-
torily prepared by Mr. Banks, were these :—The
bankrupt's debts, wholly unsecured, were 33,337/. ;
those to creditor s holding security were 3,037/. ;
there were further liabilities to the extent of 2,9341.
To meet the unsecured debts and liabilities there was,
at present, not a single shilling of assets. The only
chance of the creditors getting anything was in the
proceedings instituted against certain parties. The
bankrupt, it would be observed, debited himself with
a capital, in 1845, of 92,3821. His Honour would
find that 81,3551. of the bankrupt's losses was occa-
sioned by his lesseesh:p of the Royal Italian Opera.
There was a gift of 5,0001. to Mr. Webster. There
were also some minor items of losses. The total sum
which the bankrupt debited himself with in capital,
profits, and debts now owing, was 145,8561. He
had no doubt but this amount had been distri-
buted. The gift to Mr. Webster of 5,0001. was never-
theless a very suspicious item. At the time of giving
it, Mr. Delafield was in good circumstances. The
acquaintance originated at college, before Mr. Dela-
field was of age, and lir. Webster had made Mr.
Delafield a debtor. It was subsequently agreed that
Willow Bank should be purchased, which was made
with Mr. Delafield's money. Mr. Webster said, and
the bankrupt concurred in that statement, that Mr.
Delafield gave him that property. The next thing
was to disburse a sum of 8,5361. in rebuilding. The
whole outlay was thus 13,5261., and which was now
said to have been given to Mr. Webster. Mr. Web-
ster was not now in this country. Mr. Delafield had
an influence over him which the assignees had not,
and if the Court would new decide that the bankrupt
should not pass his last examination until Mr. Web-
ster had come forward to put the assignees in posses-
sion of all the information that he possessed, that
course would doubtless procure his presence. But the
sum of 13,5361. was not all. The house was most
luxuriously and sumptuously furnished. Mr. 'Web-
ster had, en the 9th of March, 1849, executed a deed,
and it was in favour of Mr. Delafield's own attorney.
But it was very strange that he had
in that deed expressed a doubt of his
right thus to dispose of the property. Mr.
Beale now claimed a lien of 7,0001. upon the pro-
perty. A deed was subsequently executed both by
Mr. Webster and Mr. Delafield; in which they jointly
and severally ratified. what had been done. Mr.
Beale then paid off a mortgage debt owing to Mr
Appleton, and everything in short that the bankrupt
possessed became invested in Mr. Beale. The deed
was executed on Sunday, the 22d of April. This
deed was clearly an act of bankriiptcy, because Mr.
Delafield therein assigne'd 'over to
,Mr. Beale his in-
terests in the Opera Ilonse, and in short denuded
himself, as was now said, of every shilling of property.
And yet OR the Ist of May, Mr. Delafield being then
abroad, was executed the joint deed of as'ignment
referred to over the property at Willow Bank.
The COMMISSIONER—Was this after the act of
bankruptcy had been committed ?
'Mr. LAWRANCE—Yes. The next thing for Mr.
Beale to do was to turn everything at Willow Bank
into cash. A sum of 10,4001 was realised by the
sale. The catalogue was a most interesting docu-
ment of itself, and the auctioneer's charge was as great
a curiosity in its way. Not that he had any right to
complain of what others might pay that gentleman for
his services if the property should be proved to be theirs,
but if it should be proved hereafter to belong rightly
to the creditors of Mr. Delafield, he thought that
Court would exercise a liberal use of the pruning-
knife. Now it was most important that the as-
signees, in order to sustain their right to this pro-
perty, should have the opportunity of examining Mr.
Webster. The general impression at present was,
that Mr. Webster was never in a position to buy the
property, and that it belonged to Mr. Delafield.
The COMMISSIONER—AIthough not paid for?
Mr. LAWRANCE—Yes. But there was some uncer-
tainty as to the portion that had been paid for.
Some discussion here ensued upon this point, which
was terminated by several creditors joining in sat ing
that they knew by their own experience that payment
had not been made for several thousand pounds' worth
of property contained in Willow Bank mansion.
Mr. LAwEANCE continued—He thought he had
said enough to warrant the belief that when the
parties executing this last deed expressed therein a
doubt of their right to thus dispose of the property,
a jury would not hesitate to decide that they had
not such right. Mr. Delafield was clearly the appa-
rent owner of the property, and he thought there could
be no doubt but he was also the actual owner. He
was anxious to give the bankrupt credit for having
placed himself at the -disposal of the assignees, and
had given every information in his power. But the
question was, situated as Mr. Delafield was, with
debts for so large an amount, and with not a shilling
for his creditors—was it too much to require that he
should submit to some personal inconvenience by a
delay in passing his examination ? The sum Of
10,4001, would remain in the hands of the auctioneer,
subject to the decision of a superior court, and it was
necessary, for the satisfaction of the assignees, and all
other parties concerned, that Mr. Webster's evidence
should be secured. With respect to other
circumstances that affected the bankrupt's
conduct, he might remark that there was in his ac-
counts a sum of 9,0001. that was only partly vouched,
and a further sum of about 4,0001. wholly unvouched.
Looking at Mr. Delafield's youth, and the kind of
persons into whose hands he had fallen, he did not
think, however, that they ought to be very strict in
requiring information on this head. From the little
value that he bad placed upon money, it was very
probable that he had expended this sum without being
able to produce vouchers. The personal expenses had
been large.
The COMMISSIONER—I do not see anything respect.
ing the amount of the personal expenses in the balance.
sheet.

Mr. CANNAN, the official assignee, referred his
Honour to the page in which they appeared, where he
found that the amount di6bursed under this head was
at the rate of about 7,0001. per year.

The COMMISSION ER then said that he had listened
to all that Mr. Lawrance had said more for the satis-
faction of others than himself. The only point, after
all, was, whether there should be an adjournment,
with a view to obtain the presence of Mr. Webster.
He thought Mr. Lawrance went too far in requiring
that unless his presence was obtained the bankrupt
should not pass at all. He could not go that length.
His inclination was to have an adjournment for a
reasonable period, in order that the circumstances at-
tendant upon the gift of 5,0001., and the expenditure
of 8,0001. more, should be investigated. It was a
very large sum to be disposed of in such an unusual
way, and he did not see how he could refuse to accede
to the wish that had been expressed, to obtain, if prac-
ticable, the evidence of Mr. Webster.

Mr. LEWIS submitted that the assignees had no
right to azk for what they had now asked. They
had had the opportunity during two months of ex-
amining the bankrupt's accounts, and had not done
aril. thing. All the money that had been received by
Mr. Webster, with the exception of the 5,000/, was
handed over to Mr Delafield. An account had been
given to this effect, and Mr. Webster, so far from
being a debtor, was a creditor to the extent of 2,3001.
The COMMISSIONER—Do you mean to say that
notwithstanding all that Mr. Delafield- gave, Mr.
Webster is a creditor for 2,300/. ?
Mr. LEWIS—Yes, and he thought it was too bad to

reserve all these objections to the last moment. The
gift of 5 0001. was made at a time when Mr. Delafield
was worth 70,000/,, and in receipt of an income of
10,0001. It was not necessary for the gratification of
newspaper readers to enter into the circumstances
which had occasioned the gift. It was sufficient to
say that there was not one scintilla of evidence to
rebut what had been stated. The moneys referred to
had been received by the bankrupt, Mr. Webster's
name being merely used.
The COMMISSIONER said the bankrupt's enormous
losses appeared to have been sustained principally in
the seasons of 1847 and 1848.

Reference was made, when it was ascertained that
the opera loss on the old account of 1847, by taking
to the debts due by Mr. Beale, the former lessee, was
21,144/. ; the loss in 1848, 34,746/.; and the loss in
1849, 25 455/. Total, 81,3551.
$

Mr. LEWIS continued—The principal losses were
in the payment of salaries. The private creditors
were only 2,0601., and although the bankrupt's ac-
counts related to the disbursement and loss of the
large sum of 145,000/., all had been satisfactorily
vouched, with the exception of about 4,0001. The
adjournment of a bankrupt's examination was always
considered in the light of a slur upon his conduct.
Mr. Lawrance had acknowledged that the bankrupt
had been most anxious to give every information ; and
Mr. Cannan, the official assignee, who was present,
would confirm this testimony. He trusted that the
Court would, therefore, pass the examination.
His HONOUR said the question was simply this.
Here was a case in which the bankrupt's debts
were—
To unsecured creditors

To creditors holding security
To liabilities ... ... ..

...£33,376 16 6
... 3,037 10 0
... 2,934 8 4

£39,348 14 10
On the other side, what was there to liquidate these
debts ? Absolutely nothing. The presence of Mr.
Webster was desired to explain circumstances that
were very singular. Would he confirm those state-
ments ? That was an important point. Now, it was
only four months from the date of the fiat, and yet it
was said that the bankrupt should be allowed to pass.
Notwithstanding the extraordinary circumstances of
the case—notwithstanding the bankrupt did not pro-
duce sufficient to pay the ordinary expenses of the
fiat, this was now urged upon the Court. He found,
on reference, that the assets consisted of good debts,
31 14s. 6d.—(Laughter) —some property, value not
ascertained (Laughter) this property, agai❑st
which no value was put, was an interest in a piece
of land of from four to five acres, situated at Sanderton,
near Bledlow, Bucks; and an interest in the lease o
a mansion, No 14, Clifford-street, Bond street. The
value of the interest in the land was properly left blank.
The value of the interest in the lease was properly left
blank. In ehort, the case was a blank altogether.—
(Great laugh'er.) It was the wish of the assignees
that the bankrupt should exert his influence upon Mr.
Webster, in order to procure his presence, and test
the validity of the transfer of property as against the
creditors. He thought it but proper to tell Mr. Dc-
lafield that it was his duty to accede to this wish.

Mr. LEWIS wished it to be understood that the as-
signees had not before expressed to the bankrupt any
desire upon the subject.
His HONOUR continued—He did not impute to the
bankrupt anything worse than that he had evinced a
degree of folly that had operated injuriously to him-
self as well as to others. He would adjourn the
examination to the first Thursday in February next,
at one o'clock.

Mr. LEWIS inquired whether (as there might be
an insuperable objection on the part of Mr. Webster
to be examined in this country) his Honour would be
willing to issue a commission to take his examination
at Brussels ?—(Laughter.)
The COMMISSIONER (smiling)—No ; I cannot do that.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Mr. Robert Knowles, an auctioneer and appraiser,
in Great Camoridge-street, Hackney-road, appeared
before Mr. Arnold upon an adjourned summons, in
which he was charged with unlawfully detaining a
feather bed, valued at eight guineas, the property of
William Jones, the working gunsmith whose case
has been so frequently mentioned in this paper, and
attracted so much public notice and commiseration.
It may be recollected that the article in dispute
formed part of the goods belonging to Jones, which
were taken in execution under a writ of fieri facias
from the Palace Court, and subsequently transferred
to the defendant's premises, where they were sold by
auction, and only realised the sum of 141.155., although
their actual value was estimated by the complainant
at fifty guineas. On examining the condemned pro-
perty immediately after the sale, it was discovered
by the complainant that instead of his own bed,
another one of very. inferior description had been
substituted in the interim, and knocked down, it
was alleged, to the defendant's porter for Is. 16s. ;
and as all his efforts to obtain compensation had
been wholly unsuccessful, he was ultimately com-
pelled to seek redress at the hands of a magistrate.
Several witnesses were examined at the former
hearing, the particulars of which have already been
fully detailed, and the magistrate adjourned the case
to take time for considering his decision upon the
somewhat conflicting evidence brought forward on
either side.
On the case being now called, Mr. King, a solici-
tor, who attended for the defence, renewed an applica-
tion he had previously made for the removal of the
proceedings before another tribunal, but the complainant
strongly objected to such a course, and expressed a de •
cided preference for final adjudication upon the matter
in this court.
The defendant's solicitor then addressed the magis-
rate, and contended that the complainant's witnesses
had entirely failed in establishing the fact that the bed
removed from his house, under the defendant's super-
intendence, was not the same which was afterwards
sold at the auction, while, on the other hand, it was
clearly shown by the testimony of the Palace Court
officer and another witness, that the bed taken in
execution was only worth about two guineas, and
that during the interval that elapsed between its
seizure and sale it bad remained under the charge of
the porter, Baldwin, and never left the defendant's
premises. It had also been proved that the defendant,
in the first instance, h4d only appraised the bed at
two guineas, which could never have been the case if
its real value were upwards of four times that amount,
and the sum it afterwards realised at the sale was such
as to furnish a further presumption that it was the
same article, and that its value had been fairly and
properly estimated by the defendant. With these
observations, he should leave the case in the hands of
the magistrate, and he confidently submitted that the
charge had not been sustained, and that the summons
must,therefore at once be dismissed.
Mr. ARNOLD, in pronouncing judgment, said that
there was certainly a good deal of difficulty in the
case, from the absence of direct proof that the bed
actually removed from the complainant's house was
not the same as that subsequently sold at the auction,
but after carefully considering the testimony of the
complainant's aunt, who had originally made up the
bed, and had seen it for years in his possession up to
the week prior to its seizure, together with other cor-
roborative evidence to the same effect, he could come
to no other conclusion than that another bed, of an
inferior description, had by some means or other been
substituted for the complainant's, and that it produced
at the sale a much smaller amount than his own would
have realised. He fully exonerated the defendant
from all moral culpability in the transaction, but
could not help expressing his regret, that instead of
entirely disregarding the complaint preferred by
Jones on the day of sale, as he appeared to have done,
he had not instituted an immediate investigation
into the matter, which would probably have obviated
the necessity of any further proceedings. Under all
the circumstances, he considered that the charge had
been satisfactorily made out, and fixing the value of
the bed at the lowest amount at which it had been
estimated, while the one sold at the auction had only
produced 11. 165., he should order the defendant to
pay the difference, namely 3/. 45., together with the
costs of the witnesses, exclusive of the complainant's
own relations, who waived all claim to compensation
for the loss of time and inconvenience they had in-
curred in their attendance.
On hearing the decision, the defendant made two or
three attempts to address the magistrate, but was
stopped by Mr. Arnold, who intimated that the case
was disposed of, and he must decline to hear any fur-
ther observations upon it
The following communication from a solicitor, who
had gratuitously conducted the prosecution of an
appeal on behalf of Jones, against the judgment
obtained against him at the suit of the loan society, in
the Palace Court, was received by the magistrate :
" Sir,—William Jones has this day received the sum
of 11. 3s„ which the judge of the Palace Court ordered
to be returned to him, and I have been paid the law
costs in which the plaintiff Ford was condemned,
amounting to 61. 17s. Bd. As these costs result from
proceedings in which Jones his been the sufferer, and as
I professed to undertake his case without remuneration,
I beg to place the sum in your hands, and I have to re-
quest the favour of your adding it to his hat of contriim.
lions. The above includes a fee of one guinea paid to
his counsel, which that gentleman has returned.
" I have the honour to be, Sir,
" A SOLICITOR TO THE PALACE COURT.
" T. J. Arnold, Esq,"

A Qum°Tic ACCIDENT —A curious accident
happened last week in the neighbourhood of Chiche-cer.
In order to avoid a picket, a private of the Coldstream
Guards,
lying in our barracks, took rouge in the Poi t-
field Windmill, and on leaving by the opposite door he
was struck by one of the sweeps and csrried a consider-
able distance into the field. lie was conveyed to the in-
firmary in a state of insensibility.—Brighton Gazette.
A gold imperial coin of Flavius Jovianus has lately
been discovered by a poor boy, at Scotter. It is rare
and valuable, few coins having been struck in the Em-
peror's brief reign of eight, months, in the year 363.
Lincolnthire Chronicle.