The Sun.
London, England, 1847-10-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Oct. 7.
(Before Mr. Commissioner EyAils.)
THE BANKRUPTCY OF EDWARD TIBBET.

The bankrupt, a diamond merchant, iniriti;-street,
Soho, came up for his last examination.
Mr. Cooke was counsel, and Mr. Teague, solicitor,
for the assignees ; Mr. Lawrence supported the
bankrupt.
The balance-sheet, which extends from February,
1846, to the date of the fiat, April, 1847, contains
the following items :—Sundry creditors, 11,241/. ;
liabilities, 3,1251; creditors holding security, 6,5561.;
goods, 2,8471. To meet those claims there is—pro-
perty, 1,300/. ; securities in the hands of creditors,
6,514/. ; cottages mortgaged, valued at 1,048/.
The losses are set down at 3,4151., the trade expenses
at 1,0371., and the domestic expenses at 2671.
The London and Westminster Bank are creditors
to a small amount.

A long and uninteresting examination took place
respecting the supposed substitution of opals, tur-
quoises, and some other precious stones, by the bank-
rupt, who swore positively that he had not acted in
anywise dishonestly. The reverse was not proved,
although some suspicious circumstances were deve-
loped. It appeared, in the course of the examination,
that precious stones have, in consequence of the de-
pressed state of trade and the condition of the money
market, experienced a decline in price of from 20 to
30 per cent.
His HoNoul adjourned the examination for further
inquiry.

BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT, Oct. 7.
(Before D. HEATH, Esq., Judge.)
CUSS V. THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK.
This was an action against the Duke of Brunswick
'or the recovery of 10/. 12s. 6d., alleged to be due
from his Serene Highness to the plaintiff, a master
chimney-sweeper, for work and labour done.
Mr. Braidley appeared in support of the claim, and
Mr. Warneford, of Symonds' Inn, on behalf of the
Noble Duke, to resist it, on the ground that the plain-
tiff had broken contract, and through his negligence
his Highness had sustained damage.
Mrs. Frances Cuss, plaintiff's wife, deposed that she
kept the trade books, and that the bill delivered for
the amount now sought to be recovered, which com-
menced in March, 1844, was quite correct. There
was an agreement between his Highness and her hus-
band respecting sweeping the chimney, while the
Duke occupied the house, No. 38, Bryanston-square ;
but she knew of none since he had resided at Bruns-
wick House, New-road.
William Matthews, in plaintiff's employ, said that
he had been in the habit of sweeping the duke's chim-
neys both at Bryanston- square and Brunswick House.
He recollected in the year 1845 two fires occurring in
the kitchen chimney.
Mr. WARNEFORD—HOW did they happen ? Wit-
ness—The first one I don't know how, but the last
one;;. the. cook was frying some usages when the
pan turned over, and all the fat went into the fire.
—(Laughter.) The plaintiff stated, that in March,
1844, he had a written agreement to sweep the
Duke's chimneys in Bryanston-square at 2/. a year.
In March, 1846, that contract being then concluded,
and his Highness having removed to Brunswick
House, he told the secretary he could not sweep
chimneys and be au,tweralge,forfir!S in. theta: under
5t ss. a year. -
This concluded the case.'
Mr. WARNEFORD then called
Thomas Newson, formerly in the Duke's service,
who:said that Elizabeth Kisby, the Duke's cook,
blamed the sweep for the fires, and he in return
blamed her. The Duke for the fire was summoned to
Marylebone Police-office, and fined in penalties alto-
gether of 5/. 2s.
Mr. John William Oddy, the Duke's secretary,
stated that on entering his Highness's service he
heard of the dispute between the Duke and plaintiff.
About eighteen months ago the plaintiff called at the
house with his account, when witness told him that
the Duke considered he (the plaintiff) was indebted
to him 51. 25., money he had paid for the chimney
catching fire, and that the Duke would hold him to his
contract of 2/. a year and his liability for fire. The
plaintiff then went away, and up to the present time
continued to sweep the chimneys. The cook, Elizabeth
Kisby, who could have proved that the fires origi-
nated through plaintiff's servant's negligence, was un-
fortunately out of town.
The JUDGE, having read over the evidence, said
that a contract had been entered into in 1844 for the
plaintiff to sweep the Duke's chimneys at 2/. a year,
which would be three years last March ; for the
plaintiff, after being told that the Duke would hold
him to that contract, had still continued to do that
work, and he must consider under these terms. With
respect to the plaintiff's liability for the fire, he could
not allow any set-off, but if the Duke could establish
that fact, he could bring an action against the plaintiff
for the recovery of the sums he had paid.
Verdict for the plaintiff, 6/. and costa.