The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-28 00:00:00

LAW IN TELLIGEN CE.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, June 26.
(Before Sir J. K. BrzucE.)
HUGGART ?L THE CROYDON CANAL COMPANY.

This Jbili was filed for the putp,,se of obtaining a dis-
tribution of the residue of a sum of money paid for the
purchase of a canal by the Croydon Railway Company.
The original sum contracted to be paid by the company
was 40,250/., which was to be applied, first, in paying
off the liabilities of the Canal Company, and then the
residue to be paid to the shareholders. This bill was
filed to have the distribution effected.
The COURT decided that there must be a reference to
the Master, to ascertain what liabilities of the company
were unpaid previous to a distribution of the surplus.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 26.
POTEZ V. GLOSSOP.
This was an action by the endorser of two bills of
exchange against the acceptor, to recover the sum of
5001.
Sir Frederick Thesiger, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Muller,
and Mr. George Pollock were counsel for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Humphrey, and Sir John Bay-
ley for the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant is a clergyman of the
Church of England, and holds the living of West Dean,
Salisbury. Having occasion several months ago for
pecuniary assistance, he referred to the advertisements
in the daily papers, in August, 1846, and found the fol.
lowing in the Morning Herald :—.
" PERSONAL SECURITY.—A sum exceeding 10,000/.
is ready immediately to be advarced in sums of not less
than 100/., nor more than 2,0001. to one individual. The
borrower must be of known consequence and solidity,
and no personal application can be noticed. Communi-
cations to be made, in writing only, in the first instance,
to J. R., 300, Oxford-street.
He immediately answered the advertisement, ststirg the
circumstances which induced him to ask for a loan, and
a correspondence ensued between the parties, the letters
to the defendent being signed "J. P. Gardiner." The
result of the correspondence was the defendant's going
to London and having an interview with Gardiner.
Preliminaries being then finally arranged, the defendant
gave Gardiner two acceptance, amounting to 500/, pay-
able at four months after date, in order that Gardiner
might get them discounted for him. Gardiner, in ex-
, change for the bills, gave the defendant his receipt for
them, which stated that he held them for the purpose of
obtaining a discount upon them. The defendant then
went away, in full expectation of having his money
on the following day, when Gardiner would have pro-
cured it from his bankers. For that purpose he called
upon Gardiner, at his office in Fludyer- street, West-
minster, hut his visit ended in disappointment, u hich
G. rdiner made up for by saying that he intended, in a
few days, going down to Southampton, when he would
bring the amount with him. With that assurance
the defendant left town, and according to pre-
vious arrangement, sent his carriage to meet Gar-
diner at Southampton on the appointed day. In the
meantime, however, he received a letter from that per
son, saying that he had been prevented from leaving
town, but would beg to appoint the following Saturday.
In the meantime two other letters reached the defendant's
house, one of which was from Gardiner, desiring him
to answer in the affirmative any gentleman writing from
his bankers to ascertain the authenticity of the accept.
antes he had given. The other was from a person
named Gadderer, of 23, Craven-street, Strand, who now
for the first time appeared in the transaction, and re-
quested the information alluded to in Gardiner's letter.
When the letters arrived the defendant was from home,
but Mrs. Glossop opened them, and wrote to Gadderer,
stating the bills had been left ith Gardiner to be dis-
counted, but as yet not one shi:littg had been received
for them. This reply was empleyed by Gardiner, in a
subsequent letter, that of the sth of September, to ac
count for his not going to Southampton as he promised,
as well as for his having failed to procure the advances on
the bills. Gardiner said also, that his bankers in refusing
to discount defendant's bills, had observed that they
bad 13,0001. worth of similar bills already in their
hands. Although Gardiner made a point of swear-
ing that the bills had not been out of his hands,
it would seem that he and Gadderer had been
in close communication upon the subject of this business.
On the 17th the defendant came to London, and asked
Gardiner for his bills or for the money, when the latter
said he he was going into the City to have them cashed,
and that if he would meet him at Garraway's, at half-
past three o'clock, he would hand him over the proce_ds.
The defendant kept his appointment; but Gardiner, as
might have been expected, did not make his appearance.
He next called in Craven-street upon Gadderer, whom
he did net see, and by whom he was requested to call
by-and-by for the money. He called, but never again
saw him. Gardiner he happened to meet, who told him
that he had been disappointed in his expectations of dis.
counting the bills, but that he would once more try what
could be done by applying to a friend of his, a banker
in Leeds. This resource also failing, the defendant
instructed his attorneys, who inserted an advertisement,
cautioning the public against the bills he had given, which
he described as having been obtained by fraud from the
Rev. Mr. Glossop, and referring all applications
relative to them to Messrs. Bush and Mullins, of St.
Mildred's-court. Gardiner then wrote to the de-
fendant, to say, that he, too, should put the matter
into the hands of his attorneys. Neither the bills
nor the money ever made their appearance. On Sep-
tember 30th, a letter was received from Messrs. Tucker
and Co., solicitors, complaining on behalf of the plaintiff,
(whom they called Potosi) of the publication of the cau-
tion. Messrs. Bush and Mullins wrote back for the
address of this lady, which they then heard was at 23,
Craven-street. They afterwards discovered that she
kept a lodging-house, and that Gadderer was one of her
lodgers. Upon the bills arriving at maturity, it turned
out that they were not in the hands of the plaintiff at all,
but in those of a party whose name appeared as an
endorsee, but the name of the plaintiff did not appear
upon them. They were endorsed by Gardiner, Gad-
darer, and Lawrence Levy. One bill had got into the
hands of a person named Jones, who was said to be the
father of the attorney for the plaintiff in this action.
Levy had endorsed one of the bills to Jones,
and he held the other. lie had a brother an at-
torney, named Lewis, and when the bill became
due, Levy's was presented by Lewis for payment.
Young and Valings were refused permission to see the
bill, and declined to pay it; the ether bill was also re-
fused, and hence the present action. Gardiner at length
handed the bills to one T. Holbrook Coyle, a person well
known in bill transactions, and from him they passed to
Gadderer, who ultimately obtained their discount by
Levy. When they were discounted by Levy not a word
was said about the plaintiff, for then he would have
taken care that her name was attached to them, as she
was represented to have a considerable sum in the funds,
and a house full of furniture. Before the bills became
due, Gardiner wrote to defendant to remind him of the
fact, and begged him to say whether he would be able to
meet them, as it might be necessary to arrange for their
renewal. The question upon that state of facts would
be, whether Gadderer was not the sole party to this
transaction, and that the plaintiff was in no way con-
cerned. After the dishonour of the bills, Levy went to
Gadderer and said that he did not choose to be mixed
up in the affair by bringing an action upon them, as he
was led to suppose that there might in proceedings taken.
charging a conspiracy. and therefore he must have the
money returned. Gadderer, upon the representation,
found the sum, and gave it to Levy. Tee Learned
Counsel for the defendant, in adverting to the evidence

which would be given by Mr. Deane, a solicitor, with a
view to show that, in point of fact, the plaintiff was nol
concerned, said that Gadderer would be shown to be th,
real principal in the business. The defewlant had not
had a single shilling, and could not, therefore, be called
upon to pay the amount of the bills. The evidence of
Deane certainly did go to that extent, but the defend-
aanntd's
adjourned c a s e haa bettheenf
übrutrhte hre int
twillhetnhitshdeaCy.ourt rose,

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, June 2G.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
IN RE MATTHEW3I.-IN.

This insolvent, who is the owner of a coal mine,
called " Oak Colliers," in the Forest of Dean, Glouces-
tershire, came up for his final order. The debts are
about 10.0001., but it was allalged that the property
would fetch 28,0001.
The trade assignees applied for an adjournment of the
final order, as they bad not had time to in►estigate the
affairs.

Mr. COOKE, who appeared for several creditors, said
there could be no objection to that course.
His Hosoua said it was a concern which would re-
quire a good deal of time to look into.
Mr. DUNCAN, for Mr. Matthewman, said that he was
anxious for delay, for twelve veins had been discovered
and two were in a forward state, and, with a little
money, which the insolvent's friends would advance,
they would, no doubt, prove very productive. lle
thought, therefore, that an adjournment for six months
would not be too long, as the credirors could not be pre-
judiced. As his Honour had observed, this was not an
ordinary case of insolvency,where the insolvent sought to
get rid of his debts, but he sought time to pay in lull.
Mr. COOKE and the assignees said they had no objec-
tion; but Mr. Cooke said that until the final order was
granted, the Court had no power to make an allowance.
Mr. DE:No.4.N submitted that the official assignee could
do so under the sanction of the Court, when funds were
in hand, but his Honour was of a contrary opinion.
The Learned COUNSEL then applied that the costs
should be allowed in this case, as in insolvency, and
quoted the case of Day.
His Hoxoua—l was wrong in that. I should not like
to renew the experiment.
The case was then adjourned till November.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT, June 25.
(Before D. C. MoYLAN, Esq , Judge.)
HARVEY C. HANSARD.
In this case the pla.intiff, a master printer in Char
lotte-street, Blackfriars-road, sought to recover of the
defend.ant, Mr. Luke James Hansard, the sum of 151. 95.,
for printing done for the Society fur the Abolition of
Flogging in the Army, of which the defendant was one
of the managing committee and treasurer.
The defendant, who appeared in person, denied his
liability.
From the statement of the plaintiff's counsel and the
evidence of the plaintiff, it appeared that in the mouth of
August last, in consequence of the recent flogging case
at Hounslow, a society was formed for the purpose of
abolishing flogging, and the plaintiff was applied to by
two persons, named Plume and May, to print placards
and tickets for a public meeting upon the subject, at
Exeter Hall, on the 19th of August. At this meeting
the defendant attended, and was elected treasurer. Pro-
spectuses were also printed ; Plume, the secretary,
showing plaintiff the minute-book, and telling him that
Mr. Hansard would see the money paid, as he hr.d
undertaken the management. The work was done and
the goods supplied between the 12th of August and the
2d of October.
The defendant said the greater portion of these goods
were supplied before lie joined the society; indeed the