The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 4, 1847.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
77' rs 7
o.,ui)tlnued trout Our Alit:l%lomi Edli,lollui yesctzlay

EAMES V. PARKINSON.
This was the petition of Charles Jeremiah Free-
man, and came before his Lordship as an appeal from
the decision of the Master of the Rolls. The pe-
titioner was the committer of the respondent, William
Wyget Parkinson, a lunatic, and an order had been
made against the petitioner, on a matter for which
he was not personally liable, but which should have
been against the lunatic personally. - The order
was for the payment into Court by the peti-
tioner of 141., of which sum the respondent was a
defaulting trustee, by the 6th instant, under a penalty
of being taken into custody or having his property
sequestrated.
_ _

Mr. J. Parker and another Learned Gentleman
appeared for the appellant; Messrs. Linney and Bush
for the respondent.
His LORDSHIP considered that the Master of the
Rolls had not the power of making the order in
question, and upon that ground he discharged so
much of that portion of it as made the appellant per-
sonally liable.

COLLINS 2'. ROPER.
This was also an appeal from the decision of the
Master of the Rolls relating to the payment of certain
costs.

There was nothing of any public interest in the
case, and his Lordship directed that an inquiry should
be made.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 3.
His Lordship was occupied to-day in hearing un-
opposed petitions, which contained nothing of any
public interest.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 3.
(Before Mr. Commissioner EVANS.)
IN THE MATTER OF THE SALISBURY BANK.
A fiat was to-day opened before his Honour. It
was directed against the Messrs. Brodie, proprietors
of the bank. No meeting has been as yet fixed. Mr.
Bell is the official assignee.
Edward Tibbey, a diamond dealer, in Frith-street,
Soho, came up on his adjourned last examination.
The facts of the case were the same as elicited at a
former meeting. Nothing worthy of note occurred.
The bankrupt passed his last examination.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 3.
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)
IN RE ROBERT EVEREETT.
This insolvent was opposed by Mr. Cooke, on be-
half of the trustees of a turnpike-road with whom
he had contracted for the tolls, and had signed the
usual bond, with two sureties, one cf whom he repre-
sented to be Mr. T. Couling, of Islington, livery-
stable-keeper.
The insolvent having failed in his payments, appli,
cation was made to Mr. Couling, who denied all
knowledge of the transaction, asserting that the sig-
nature to the bond was not his.
The clerk to the solicitor to the trustees swore that
the insolvent was present at the time when the pre-
tended Couling executed the deed.
The insolvent, however, denied that he had seen the
bond signed by Couling, and offered to produce a
person, named Banns, to prove that no other person
was present at the time of his (the insolvent's) sign-
ing but the clerk and themselves. Several adjourn-
ments accordingly were. granted to enable the insol-
vent to produce Banns, but to-day he stated that he
had written to that person, who called upon him in
prison, and was there served with a subpoena, but he
was not in attendance.
The CmEr COMMISSIONER said, as that was the
case, and as t►•.e matter had stood over several times
to allow the insolvent to prove his statement, which
he had not done, no further adjournment could be
allowed, as it was only harrassing the creditors to
bring them to the court so frequently to no purpose.
The insolvent replied, he did not require any fur-
ther postponement, as the suspense was worse than
the punishment.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER said, that it having been
distinctly sworn that the insolvent was present at the
time the bond was signed by the supposed Couling,
and he not having supported his own denial by the
production of the evidence which he had asserted he
could adduce, the Court was bound to consider the
case for the opposition had been proved, and conse-
quently the insolvent would not be discharged until
the expiration of eight calendar months from the date
of the vesting order, for contracting the debt of the
opposing creditors in a fraudulent manner.
IN RE JAMES BERRY CLARKE.
This insolvent was opposed by Mr. Nichols upon
the ground of a vexatious defence to an action. It ap-
peared that the insolvent was sued for 81.11 s. 6d.
He pleaded, but did not otherwise defend the action,
and a verdict was obtained for the plaintiff, the costs
being 13/.75. An action upon the judgment for debt
and costs was afterwards brought, to which the insol-
vent did not plead, and a verdict was obtained, upon
which he was now in custody. The insolvent had, it
appeared, been summoned under the Small Debts Act
to the Bankruptcy Court, and not having complied
with the order then made, had been committed to pri-
son for 40 days.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said, that as the insol-
vent had not pleaded to the last action, the one which
constituted the present debt, no vexatious defence bad
been made out. His conduct in the first action had
undoubtedly been wrong, but he had perhaps been
sufficiently punished for that by his forty days' im-
prisonment.
The insolvent:was ;then ordered:to be discharged
forthwith.