The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-09 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, July 7.

BOYDE V. THE ROYAL EXCHANGE INSURANCE COMPANY.
This was a claim for the constructive total loss of a
vessel in her voyage to Sydney in 1843. The ship, it
appeared, was abandoned on the assumption that the
expense attendant upon an attempt to recover her would
amount to more than her real value. There was a ver-
dict for the defendant. A rule was subsequentlty ob-
tained to set aside that verdict on the ground of its being
against evidence, and of misdirection of the Learned
Judge at the trial. The arguments in the case involved
the prudence of the owner in thus abandoning his vessel.
Lord DENMAN having reviewed the objections urged,
and the authorities quoted by the Learned Counsel on
both sides, said it was the opinion of the Court that the
application failed upon all the points raised, and the rule
must consequently be discharged.

- THE QUEEN V. DUNN.
The only question to be considered was, whether the
Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy had the power of
administering an oath to the defendant under the pecu-
liar circumstances of the case, upon which affidavit the
inlictment against the defendant was framed.
Lord DENMAN said that the Court were of opinion the
affidavit was sworn before a competent authority, and
the rule obtained by the defendant to arrest the judg-
ment must be discharged.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July 8.
(Before Mr. Commissioner PANE.)
IN RE E. P. T. PITZGERALD.—RE COMMITMENT TO
PRISON.
This insolvent described himself as an author and
newspaper editor, &c. Today was appointed for him
to come up for his final order.
Mr. STURGEON opposed, on behalf of Mr. Stopford,
on the ground that he (Mr. Sturgeon), who held a bill
for 501., was not inserted in the schedule, and that Mr.
Minagan was inserted as a debtor for 50/., when he was
in fact a creditor.
Insolvent was not present, and had stated that having
got his liberty, under the order of the Court, he should
not come up.
His HONOUR having heard evidence, said that it did
not appear that the insolvent was entitled to the benefit
of this Act of Parliament, and, therefore, on an affidavit
being made, he would grant an order for the re-commit-
ment of the insolvent.

SHERIFFS' COURT, July 8.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BuncnELL.)
JEANSON V. STAPLETON AND ANOTHER.
This was an action of detinue to recover the value
of property belonging to plaintiff, and detained by the
defendants, and for damages for such detention.
The plaintiff is a major in the army, the defendants
are cabinet makers, &c., in Great Marylebone-lane, and
the facts of the case are these:—ln 1840 plaintiff was
in possesion of a valuable slab of mosaic work imported
from Malta, which he took to the defendants, and gave
instructions for it to be set on a handsome rosewood
stand, which was done at a cost of twenty-eight guineas,
but the plaintiff not calling for it up to the end of 1843
they parted with it to a gentleman named Howard.
They said it was only lent to him, as it would
not become damaged, but Mr. Howard insisted
that he had bought it for fifty guineas, which
he had since paid, but no settlement had
been come to previously, as there was a running
account between them, but there had never been any
charge for the hire of the table. At first when the
table was demanded back it was refused, but subse-
quently Mr. Howard, understanding that it was a gift
to plaintiff from his father, sent it to defendant a few
months since.
The UNDER- SHERIFF suggested an arrangement.
Mr. HILL, for the defendants said, they were willing
to give up the table, or to pay 501. and the costs ; they
did not think, however, they ought to be called upon to
pay anything in the shape of da nages.
Tne offer being rejected, the slab alone being valued
at 751.,
The jury gave a verdict for 751., the value of the pro-
perty, and ls. for damages, which carries costs.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT, July 7.
(Before D. C. MOYLAN, Esq., Judge.)
HARVEY V. HANSARD.
In this case the plaintiff, Mr. George Harvey, a
printer, carrying on business in Charlotte-street, Black-
friar's-road, sought to recover of the defendant, Mr.
Luke James Hansard, the well-known philanthropist,
the sum of 151. 9s. 6d.
It appeared from the statement of the plaintiff, in the
mouth of August last, soon after the flogging case at
Hounslow, a society was established having for its object
the " abolition of flogging in the army," and a meeting
was called at Exeter-hall in furtherance of it. At this
meeting the defendant attended and most liberally sub-
scribed. He became a member of the managing com-
mittee, and was appointed treasurer. For :he meeting
bills and tickets were printed by the plaintiff, as well as
prospectuses, the orders for which were given by a Mr.
Plume, the secretary. The society became extinct, and
as the plaintiff could not obtain his money, he summoned
the defendant in his capacity of member of the commtttee
of management.
The defendant denied his liability, contending that he
knew nothing of the society until after the meeting on
the 19th of August, and that he could not be made
liable for those articles which had been supplied prior to
that date.
The plaintiff produced his books and copy of the
prospectus of the society, printed on the 12th of August,
in which the name of the defendant appeared as one of
the managing committee, and the JUDGE accordingly
made an award in favour of the plaintiff.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON and Mr. Justice MAULE.)
William Smith surrendered to take his trial upon an
indietmeht charging him with publishing a libel con-
cerning John Broome, the pugilist.
In some of the counts the intent of the defendant was
laid to be to extort money.
Mr. HUMFREY, who appeared for the prosecution, said
he was instructed that it was the intention of the defend-
ant to plead guilty to that count of the indictment which
merely charged him with publishing the libel, and if he
did so, it was not the intention of the prosecutor to offer
any evidence upon the other counts of the indictment.
He would only be required to enter into his own recog-
nizances to appear and receive the judgment of the Court
if ho should be called upon to do so ; but if he did not
offer any further molestation to the prosecutor, he would
hear no more of the matter.
Sergeant Wimusrs, who was instructed for the defence,
said there was not the slightest foundation for those
counts charging an intention to extort money, and he
thought his Learned Friend had only exercised a proper
discretion in abandoning them. The fact was that Mr.
Smith had listened to some gossip about Mr. Broome,
and he had foolishly published it, and he felt that there
was no defence to the charge of publishing the libel in
question, and, acting under his advice, the defendant
would plead guilty.
The defendant then retracted his plea of not guilty,
and one of guilty was recorded upon the first count in
the indictment, and upon his entering into his own re-
cognizance to appear and receive judgment, if called
upon, he was discharged.
Mr. HUMFREY applied to the Court to allow the
trial of a person named Pollard, who had been com-
mitted on the previous evening upon a charge of stealing
certain bills of exchange, the property of Prince Louis
Bonaparte, to be postponed to the latest period of the
session that would be consistent with the convenience of
their Lordships. The defendant was most anxious to
meet the charge, but having been committed so recently
there had been no time to prepare the defence.
Mr. Justice MAULE inquired what was the nature of
the charge ?
Mr. CLARESON, for the prosecution, said the case
would assume the shape of larceny, and he considered
that it might be advisable to hare it disposed of by one
of their Lordships.
The Court ordered the trial to bs fixed for Friday.
Joheph Willett surrendered to take his trial upon an
indictment for wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Phino prosecuted; Mr. Ry-
land and Mr. Ballantine were far the prisoner.
This was a prosecution instituted by the assignees
appointed under a fiat of bankruptcy issued against the
defendant in October, 1844, the alleged perjury having
been committed by the defendant upon his examination
before the Court of Bankruptcy, and having reference to
one of the items of his balance sheet. It appeared that
in 1843. a year preceding his bankruptcy, the defen-
dant, who carried on the business of a currier at Cog-
gleshall, in Essex, was indicted at the Essex assizes for
an assault, and two professional gentlemen, named Bick-
more and Smoothey, were engaged to conduct his de-
fence. On the day the trial took place, and just before
the jury returned their verdict, it appeared that the de-
fendant handed to Mr. Biekmore a canvass bag contain-
ing money, and the contents of that bag formed the na-
tural subject of the present inquiry. It seems that in
1844 the defendsnt got into difficulties, and was declared
a bankrupt, Messrs. HackblJek and Emsworth, the
prosecutors of the present indictment, being appointed
the assignees. A balance-sheet was filed by the
bankrupt, and in the account he gave of his estate
he said that upon the occasion above referred to he gave
Mr. Bickmore 921. in the bag, and made him a creditor
to his estate in that amount. This assertion was contra-
dicted by Mr. Bickmors, and the result of that proceed-
ing was that the last examination of the bankrupt was
adjourned sine die. The defendant applied again to the
Court of Bankruptcy in 1846, and an examination took
place on the 4th of May, when he again repeated his
former statement relative to the 921., and declared that
he gave that sum to Mr. Biekmore. A person named
Willsher was examined as a witness in confirmation of
that statement; but after hearing the depositions of Mr.
Bickmore and Mr. Smoothey, and a full investigation
of all the circumstances, the Commissioner again ad-
journed the examination sine die, and the present pro-
ceeding was then instituted against the defendant, the
sole question in the cause being whether the defendant
did really give the sum of 921. to Mr. Bickmore at the
time referred to or not.
Mr. Bickmore was called, and he deposed that he
defended the prisoner at the assizes at Chelmsford, with
Mr. Smoothey, and a day or two before the trial the
defendant handed him 20/. on account of the expenses.
He required some more money from the defendant on
the dayinf the trial, and just as the proceedings concluded
he handed to him a bag containing money, which he
examined afterwards at the inn, and found it contained
twelve sovereigns. He declared positively that the bag
contained no wore gall that 613191111t1 and it appealed