The Sun.
London, England, 1847-08-04 00:00:00

the quarter's rent due on the 29th October, and also
that .we on the 25;h December, and even supp i..d him
vvitb beer (the plaintiffs having a brewery near the mine)
down to the month of April last.
Evidence having been given in support of this state-
ment, and the facts being relied on as a waiver of the
forfeiture,

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD (with whom was Mr. Gray),
for the plaintiffs, submitted that, in point cf law, they
did not amount to a waiver, and called witnesses to show
that the defendant deposited the lease with the attorney
of the plaintiffs as an equitable mortgage for another
party; and also proceeded to call other agents of the
plaintiffs, who, on learning that the person whose duty
it was to receive the rents had reeeiv,d the rent in gut's.
Lion, requested him to go back and return it to thu di.-
fendant, who refused to take it; but

His LORDSHIP holding that these agents, having no
paramount authority to the person who received the rent
in his own peculiar department, this evidence was not
gone into at any length.
Mr. WIATELEY having replied on behalf of the de•
fendart, on this additional evidence adduced for the
plaintili, and

- Mr. Sergeant TALFOURP having replied generally,
His LORDSHIP, having fir t reserved the point, whe-
ther the receipt of the rent was a waiver of the forfeiture,
summed up the case to the jury, who, after a short con-
sultation, returned a verdict for the delendant.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Aug. 3.
(Before Mr. Commissioner PANE).
IN RE ALEXANDER AND co.
The bankrupts, Alexander and Company, were the
most extensive bankers and merchants in the British co-
lothial possessions. Their chief place of business was in
Calcutta but they carried on trade with almost every
part of the globe We are invormed that in India, they
were for years looked upon as one of the wealthiest
firms in a country proverbial for its we-rith. The ex-
tent of the failure shows to what an amount they en.
joyed the public confidence. As far as the reporter can
collect the facts, They failed about fifteen years a.fo tot
b tween 3.000 0001. and 4 000,000/. sterling ; they had
a house in London, and their chief creditors were in this
city. An application was made to his Honour in the
matter ny a creditor for 18,000/.. named Maj-r, who ap
plied to see the proceedings which had been filed in this
Court, and also to see the correspondence which ha,
taken place between the official assignee in this country
Mr. Whitmore, and the assignees in India 0-ie of the
Indian assignees absconded, taking with him 40,000/
Mr. Major now complained of the great delay that had
taken place in the distribution of the assets, and eon
aid, red that the offiAil assigne-, Mr. W hitinore. had
not done all he could have d- ne in they way of declaring
a dividend. Mr. Whitmore was understood to say
that he had done what he could in the matter, but there
was great trouble in winding up such large and compli
cated transactions from the distance at which most, of
them occurred, and from peculiar circumstances attend
ing this Bankruptcy.
His HONOUR said that it must at all events be ad
misled that it was something in favour of the constitution
of this Court, that a creditor could came in at any time
and lay his complaint before he Commissioner withow
entailing upon hini one shilling of expense. Some fur.
thee discussion took place, but the matter was ultimately
adjourned to November next.

COURT' OF REVIEW, Aug 3.
IN RE SUSTENANCE.
This petition involved a point of practice in the bank-
ruptcy juris..iction. It was an application for the transfer
of a fund standing in the Bank of England in the names
Of two p n sons, one of whom was dead and the other a
bankrupf, and out of jurisdiction.
Mr. RoUNDELL PALMER, on b. half of the Bank of
England, object.-d that the p. tition nuait to Inve beet
Wall led in Sir F.dwari Sugsfen's Ac-; but
The CHIEF JUDGE, fhought that he might mak. tf e
order pursuant in the 79th section of the B inkrupt Act.
EX PARTE HALL IN RE TAVERNER.
This petition eas before the Court on tht
3d of June. The question was, whether the executna,
oi a d ed for the benefit of cr. ditors was an act of hat k-
ruptcy.
The CHIEF JUDGE said, that as the petitioning end'
tor had distn.ctly concurred in the dial!, he was pre
eluded from raising the question.
The petition was allow, .1 io stand over to give time to
establish another act bankruptcy, which, nut having
been att. mpted,
His Hortnurt to-day dismis ed the petition with costs.
The Chief Judge let tall an Observation in course of
the el..y, GI the etf-ct that the recent enactment for Atm -
lishlng the Court was.so doubtful in its language. that
remained yet to he seen wh.-tner the Conn of Review
was abolished. That depended upon the construction of
the Act.