The Sun.
London, England, 1838-10-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Szrr. 29. '
(Concluded from The Sun of Saturday. )
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JULIUS HUTCHINSON, ESQ.
Mr. COOKE examined insolvent—He never saw Mr. Beres-
ford. He acted for the late Sir George Montgomery. He
died in July, 1831. He had property in Scotland, Ireland,
and England. lie had nothing to do with the property in
Ireland. or Scotland. Mr. Stewart was agent to Mr. Mont-
gomery ; he was one of the executors. The will was proved
in England by Mr. Robert Montgomery alone. He was ap-
pointed his attorney in England. (The letter of the attorney
was read, witnessed by Mr. Stewart, on thy 17th of No-
vember, 1831.)
Mr. COOKE continued—He received the sums of SOO/. and
833/. The first sum he paid over, and the second in part.
Ile had paid some law charges on account of Sir George,
amounting to 46/. Mrs. Beresford was entitle.l to the
money for her sole and separate use. He conceived he was
acting under Mr. Montgomery's authority. He had not
made cut any bills against the estate of Sir George Mont-
gomery. He had claims against his estate. Ile requested
to have the consent of Mr. Montgomery, or that he might
be indemnified against any claim which that gentleman might
have against hint. The negotiation termilFited in a refusal.
A letter, dated May 31, 1838, from the insolvent to Mr.
Montgomery, was here put in and rea,?, at the reading of
which the insolvent shed tears.
Mr. WOODROFFn put in the probate of the will of Sir George
Montgomery, dated October 24, 1831, proved by Robert
Montgomery, Esq. It spoke of the English property ; it set
out the interest of Mrs. Beresford under the will, which was
not chargeable with his debts. It was an office copy of the
Scotch will.
Mr. Pumurs submitted that Mr. Bcresford's name should
be inserted as a creditor on the schedule.
Mr. COOKS, contra, said Mr. Beresford was a legatee only.
Mr. PHILLIPS submitted that if Mr. Beresford were not a
debtor he was a creditor. Ile must have used the money in
some way. It was, at all events, a breach of trust. If Ile
were a creditor, it was quite clear he bad a right to complain
• that a breach of trust had been committed by the insolvent.
COURT-The question is whether Mr. Beresford had a right
to make use of Mr. Montgomery's name.
Mr. NICHOLS submitted that there bad been a vexatious de-
' fence to the writ of scirefacias. Costs to the amount of 20/.
had been incurred. The debt had gone on for several years,
an I Mr. Hut:hinion's continuing in I rison so long was his own

choice.
Mr. Cools replied, and said it was an ordinary case. The
insolvent had prepared a co9novit, but they preferred brin;ing,
an action. It had not been the insolvent's choice to remain
in prison. It had been a severe punishment to him. Ile sub-
mitted that the insolvent had been too long incarcerated to
call for an adverse jedgmcnt. The up;. using party was en-
titled to an affidavit from Mr. Montgomery.
The else was ultimately adjourned to the 9th of October,
for an affidavit from Mr. Montgomery, stating whether he
allowed nis name to be used for the purpose of the opposition,
Mr. Montgomery having written a letter to the insolvent on
the 14th of September instant, denying that he authorised
any person to act for him in the matter.
The insolvent was described as late of Connaught-terrace,
Edgware-road, aqd had been the acting attorney against Mr.
Long Wellesley in a Chancery cause in relation to the custody
of Mr. Wellesley's children. The case excited very conside-
rable interest, and the Court was filled during the whole day
with most respectable persons.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

On Saturday Mr. Roberts, poor-rate collector of St. James's
was charged before Mr. Conant, with having committed an
assault on a milkman naate. d Dole, living is Poland-street.
The complainant said he called on Mr. Roberts for the pur-
pose of paying certain parish rates. When shown into the
parlour, Mr. Roberts said to hint authoritatively, " Take off
your hat." Not liking to comply with this abrupt demand,
he refused, upon which Mr. Roberts came towards him, seized
him by his arms, and forcibly removed his hat. Complainant
went away, but shortly afterwards returned in the company of
a witness, and paid the demand upon him. The complainant
added, that he considered Mr. Roberts would have been quite
as much justified in requiring him to take off any other less
decent portion of his dress es he was in asking bias to re-
move his hat.
Mr. Roberts said the complainant walked unceremoniously
into his parlour, with ditty shoes, without his coat, and wearing
his hat. 1-le civilly requested the complainant to take off his
hat while he was in the parlour, and especially as he was in the
presence of a lady, or to walk into the passage. The corn-
plainant replied with great rudeness, upon tvhich he went up to
him, and removed his hat. The complainant went away, and
returned in a short time to pay the rates, using the grossest
description of abuse towards him.
The complainant said Mr. Roberts told him that he would
kick the terminus of the first gentleman in the land out of his
house who should presume to wear his bat in his parlour.
Mr. CONANT said the defendant was not justified in taking
the complainant's hat off his head. It was an act of in-
breeding for any person to wear his hat in the private room
of any respectable individual, but that did not justify a forci-
ble removal of the hat. The defendant ought to have taken
the complainant by the shoulders and removed him from the
room, without, however, using more violence tha❑ sufficed to
effect an ejectment.
Mr. Roberts ultimately consented to pay a small fine, which
with expenses, amounted to seven shillings.

DREADFUL ACCIDENT ON TIIE
LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY.

On Saturday afternoon a lengthened inquiry was instituted
at the Railway Arms Inn, Watford, before William Osbaldes.
ton, Esq., Coroner for the county of Hertford, on the body of
James Daniell, aged 48, a policeman in the employ of the Lon-
don and Birmingham Railway Company.
Mr. Thomas Howe, inspector of the Watford division
of the Railway police, about nine o'clock on the evening
of Friday last, a short time previous to the arrival of the
mail train from London, passed down the line, as was his
custom, to inspect the men on duty in his division. Saw
deceased near his station at the Watford Tunnel, and ob-
served that he had not hii own coat and belt on but that of
his comrade Wharton, for which he gave him a severe repri-
mand, and cautioned him not to do so again. Went on down
the line and returned shortly after ten o'clock, and saw
Wharton, whose duty it was to relieve deceased at ten o'clock.
On seeing him he was greatly surprised at discovering him in
the same coat deceased had on, in a very torn and dirty con-
dition, and questioned him as to the cause of it, when he re•
plied, " He did not know, he had found it so hung up in his
box, but he had reason to believe it had been made use of by
the unfortunate man lying dead in the tunnel." Witness said
" Good God, what man ?" and Wharton replied that it W 95
his comrade, Daniell, but that he was unable to remove him by
himself. Accompanied Wharton back through the tunnel
about 200 yards, and discovered the body of the deceased lying
on the line, face downwards, weltering in blood, with one of
his arms severed from his body, and the back part of his neck
and skull laid completely open. lie was quite dead, and was
without the great coat witness had reprimanded him for having
on instead of his own.

Wm. Wharton was a police constable on the London and
Birmingham Railway at Watford. At ten o'clock on Friday
night went on duty to relieve deceased, and found his (wit-
ness's) great coat and belt hung up in its proper place in the
watchbox, but on seeing its condition suspected something
had happened. Proceeded up the tunnel, and found deceased
as described by first witness, quite dead.
The witness was subject to a severe cross-examination by
the Coroner and Jury, but persisted in his assertion, and
swore positively that he had not taken the coat from the de-
ceased's body, but that he found it hung up in the box. (This
declaration excited the greatest surprise.)
From the cvidencz of the engineers and others connected
with the mail train, by which the unfortunate affair must have
been occasioned, nothing positive was elicited ; but it is sup-
posed that on the arrival of the train at the tunnel, the de-
ceased was in it, and observing the train coming at full speed,
had not sufficient time to cross the line, but stood up against
the side of the tunnel, with his back to the wall, by which
made only the train could clear him, the space being so nar-
row, and that, fancying the train had passed him, he (the de-
ceased) had turned round, and has struck on the head by the
projecting rail of the Post-office van, which felled him to the
ground, under the wheels of the train.
Some severe comments basing been passed on the conduct
of the police constable Wharton, it being evident that he
must have taken the coat from the mangled body of the de-
ceased, the Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict
of " Accidental Death."

ATTACK ON STANFIELD HALL BY
A MOB.-MILITARY CALLED our.

On Monday one of the most extraordinary outrages ever
perpetrated was committedh on th•
seat of Isaac Jeremy, Esq ,
by a large mob, headed
man named Larner, and another
person, also from Londony,a m
calling himself Daniel Wingfield.
Lamer professes to be a claimant to the Stanfield property.
The following are the facts conne Lted with this remarkable
Esq.,who lately, by Royal liemse, as_
case : Isaac Preston,
sumed the name of Jeremy, Is the son and heir of the Rev.
George Preston, of Stanfield Hall. His father succeeded to
estate by virtue of the will of his elder brother, also of
tShti: n Stanfield Hall, in May, 1786, and Mr. Jeremy came into pos-
session on his father's death in 1337, the property having been
a century in the family. In Juno last an auction took place
of the Rev. George Preston's effects, when on one of the
days of the sale a servant informed Mr. Jeremy that there
was a person below who claimed to take possession of the place
as heir-at-law to the property. Mr. Jeremy, in company with
Mr. Culley, the auctioneer, vrett to a room on the first floor,
where he saw two men, one of whom was the prisoner John
Lamer, and asking them what business they had there, de-
sired them to leave the house. The person who accompanied
Lerner said—" This gentleman is Mr. John Larner, the heir
at law to this property, and he has come to take possession of
asked the speaker if he were a
his estate." Mr. Jeremy
lawyer, and on being answered in the negative, be told them
that if they had any claim to his property the way was open
to them to put it forward by means of legal and not illegal
proceedings. The intruders were again desired to leave the
house, which they refused to do, and Mr. Jeremy sent to
Wymondham for the police officers, who removed them from
the premises.
On Tuesday, the 11th of September, eight or nine prsons
violently entered the mansion, then occupied by a lady of for-
tune, Mrs. Sims, and demanded of her the keys of the house,
desiring her to lcave the place. On the 20th of September
Larner again entered the premises, accompanied by a black-