The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-24 00:00:00

BAIL COUI?T, Nov 23.

Justice PATTESON was engaged in the early part of
the morning in dibposing ..of undefended causes, after
which the Court sat in Banco. In the course of the
morning the Westminster Grand Jury was discharged,
as there was no business before them.

THE QUEEN V. PARKER AND ANOTHER.

Mr. CHAMBERS applied on behalf of Benjamin Parker
and John Parker, to remove an indictment which had
been found against them in the Central Criminal Court
into this Court by certiorari, and also that the defendants
should be admitted to bail in a less amount than had
been ordered to be taken by the Central Criminal Court.
It appeared that two indictments had been found against
the defendant Benjamin Parker at the September ses-
sions, one for obtaining goods under false pretences, and
another for conspiring, in conjunction with Joseph
Parker, to obtain goods under false pretences. The
indictment against Benjamin Parker alone, was tried at
the last sessions of the Central Criminal Court, and he
was acquitted. He was then called upon, in conjunction
with his brother Joseph, to plead to the second indict-
ment. They both pleaded accordingly, and traversed
to the next sessions. Shortly afterwards, another brother,
John Parker, was brought in, and it was: represented
that the man who had pleaded as Joseph: ,Parker had
been taken by mistake, and that, John; Parker.. was
the man meant. Joseph Parker was then. discharged on
his own recognizances; and a fresh bill .was preferred
against Benjamin Parker! John Parker, and Philip May,
for conspiring to obtain 'goods under false pretences. That
verdict had been reranveti by certiorari into this Court as
far as regarded Mayi, ,aucl as the same questions would
arise respecting the rarkers, he thought his Lordship
would have no difficulty in granting the certiorari. With
respect to the bail, it appeared that the Court had or-
dered Benjamin to give bail, himself in 1,000/. and two
sureties in 500/. each on the last indictment, and him-
self in 500/. and two sureties in 250/. on the first
indictment—those two indictments being identical,
and the second one having been rendered neces•
sary only in consequence of the error committed in
respect to Joseph Parker, and thus he was called upon
to give bail, himself in the enormous sum of 1,5001., and
four sureties also in 1,500/., which he was utterly un-
able to procure.. Under these circumstances he trusted
us Lordship 'would reduce the amount of bail.
Mr. flumptEvs opposed the application, and said that
it was a complete" Comedy of Errors.". Joseph and John
Parker were twins, and it was almost impossible
to distinguish them. His client contended that
John went Occasionally by the name of Joseph
and that he wits the person meant in the first indictment.
The person . who had pleaded to it wrongfully had
been discharged by the Recorder, who had or-
dered him to enter into his own recognzances in 1,000/.
The prosecutor had no wish that he should have been
called on to enter into recognizances at all. The second
indictment charged them with obtaining goods to a much
larger amount than the first. If the first were in the
Court he should have no objection to having it quashed.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Let the first indictment be
moved into this Court by certiorari and quashed. Let
the second indictment be also moved into this Court,
and when the defendants have pleaded, let them be ad-
mitted to bail as May has been, each prisoner in 1,000/.,
and each to find two sureties in 5001. each, and let 48
hours' notice of bail be given.

The prisoners were then brought up by the keeper of
Nc woute and after having pleaded `` Not Guilty," were
removed in custody, on the understanding that they
were-eventually to be handed over into the custody of the
Marshal of the Queen's Bench.
(WO WARRANTO.-THE QUEEN V. HART.
The SOLicyron-GENEttAL applied fora rule for a quo
Warranto, calling upon Francis Freeling Hart to show
by what authority he exercised the office: of Mayor of
Harwich: By the• • Municipal Corporation Act the
Mayor must be elected from among the Aldermen
and Councillors. Mr. Hart had 'been elected Mayor
from among the Aldermen, lirid if .could, show
that Mr. Hart had no right to hold ilie.offiCe of Alder-
man, he had no right to exercise the fiinctions of Mayor.
Mr. Hart had been elected Alderman in the room of Mr.
Graham, whose office bad been declared vacant by the
Council. Now, he had affidavits showing that Mr. Gra-
ham had done nothing to forfeit his office ; neither had
he been absent from the borough for six consecutive
months; therefore the Court had no right to declare any
va.!ancy, or to elect Mr. Hart. He also moved on an-
other ground. Mr. Graham's time as Alderman expired
on the 9th November last, the day on which Mr. Hart
hail been elected Mayor, and certainly, if Mr. Hart had
be .m duly elected as Alderman, be could not hold that
office after Mr. Graham's time had expired.
Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 23.
BODGES V. COOPER.

This was an action brought by a silk mercer against
the defendant, a gentleman of private fortune, to recover
the' value of a large quantity of silks and other merceries,
supplied to the wife of the latter.
The defence ,was, that the plaintiff had not used
proper caution to ascertain the situation of Mrs.
Cooper, who was at the time of the credit,
separated froni her husband under..eircurnstauces which
led to a divoreo ; that t4i.iwods were not.ne-
eessaries. It vas pfos;ed on the tx:41,01.44,,tk latly,was
supplied in one day with silks to thiz vtire Amore than
'
1001., and of such bulk thattlabsffver9 eiiiployed in
taking them away. Tie Jury.
mtfrtreithe plaintiff ;
but the Court, this day, upon it; rulel6l3ltitined by Mr.
'Sergeant Channell for the defendant, i•itnaa'it new trial.
3IILLER v. THOMPSON; '
The. plaintiff in this case is a tradesman at Dorking,
and brought the action against the defendant, one of the
directors of a Company now extinct, called the "London
Trades Joint Stock Banking Company," to recover the
amount of a cheque or bank bill, signed by the de-
fendant, and addressed to the manager of the Dorking
branch of the company. The defence was, that the de-
fendant was not liable as the 'drawer, inasmuch as the
plaintiff had not duly presented the document, which
was of the nature of a bill of exchange. On the other
hand, it was contended ' that the introduction of the
words " without acceptance" deprived the paper of that
character, and released the plaintiff from the usual obli-
gation to present a bill of exchange, to the drawer in
due time.

The verdict was for the plaintiff,
-and Mr. Sergeant
Wrylde this day showed a caAse against a rule obtained
by Mr. Sergeant Channell for a new trial.
heard Mr. Sergeant Channell in
reply, decided that the defendant was individually liable,
and that the verdict was rightly found for the platntiff.—
Rule discharged.
, . .

~.„ c._,,Q.,ilURT op .I.l' ANKRUPTCY; Nov. 23.
. - . .
sll;ssS. WRICHT AND COMPANY'S DANKRUPTcY.
ltir7Pickso.N, on behalf. of the assignees of the joint
estate or the Messrs. Wri,ht, late bankers in tlenrietta-
street, 'Covent-garden applied to the Court that they
might be allowed to prove against the 'private estate of
one of the partners,. Mr. John Wright, on the ground
that he had in his individual capacity drawn large sums
of money from theipartnership account to the loss of the
several creditors of the firm.
The LEARNED COMMISSIONER. said this was an appli-
cation which he should wish to take some time to con-
sider. He was always very cautious in acceding to such
applications, unless evidence could be adduced establish-
ing a case of fraud. .. •. . .

Mr. DIca.SoN said he thought he would, be in a condi-
tion to prove by evidence from the partner Ship books
and from Mr. John IVright's own clerk, that the money
had been drawn by him under circumstances which, to
Use the least harsh term, could not be uivroved of, as at

the time he drew those sums of money on his own
account from the partnership account he must have been
aware of the.diffi&)ties and approaching bankruptcy of
the firm.,

Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said he thought the best
course to adopt would be a conditional postponement
until the next day of meeting for a dividend, when all
the creditors would have had notice of the course Iwo-
posed, and an opportunity of judging of its propriety,
and he would have further time to consider the matter
himself.

Mr. DICKSON having agreed with the Learned Com-
missioner the matter dropped.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Nov. 23.
Several undefended actions were taken first.
ARCHBUT V. WINDSOR. .

This was an action to recover the sum of 191. 19s. for
the amount of an attorney's bill.
The plaintiff failed to prove some of the items, and the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 10L 10s.