The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-12 00:00:00

BILL AND ANOTHER V. BAMENT.

This was an action tried before the Lord Chief Baron,
when the verdict was found for the plaintiff. Mr. Erie
had obtained a rule calling upon the plaintiff to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a non-
suit entered.

Cause against that rule was to-day shown by Mr. THE-
SIGER and Mr. MARTIN. The plaintiffs are brushmakers,
Who received a large order for some of their goods for the
defendant, through an agent named Harvey. The goods
were sent to Harvey, who delivered them over to the de-
fendant. The question in the cause was, whether there
had been a legal acceptance of the goods by the defend-
ant, and whether the contract was not void by the Statute
of Frauds, inasmuch as there was no contract in writing,
the sum being much above 101. They insisted that Har-
vey was a del credere agent, and the action maintainable.
Mr. ERLE and Mr. VITATELEY (contra) contended
that the hairbrushes were repudiated by the defendant ;
and although some of the other articles were accepted,
that would not make an acceptance of the whole. Har-
vey was the agent of the plaintiffs. There was, then,
nothing in the case but a verbal order, which was void
by the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds.
The COURT were of opinion that the rule must be
made absolute. There was no doubt some evidence to
go to the Jury of acceptance, but very little. The pecu-
liarity of this case was that Harvey was the agent of the
plaintiff, and sold the goods for cash, and it was his duty
not to part with the goods without the money. The de-
fendant could not claim the goods without the money;
therefore there had been no full acceptance such as to
take the case out of the statute. No delivery had been
proved ; there was no evidence of a change of possession
in the goods; therefore the rule for a nonsuit must be
made absolute.

On the application of Mr. THESIGER,
The COURT ordered a rule for a new trial to issue, the
defendant paying the costs of the former trial.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 10.

SMITH AND MARSHALL'S BANK EUPTCY-THE LATE

TALLOW SPECULATIONS.

In this case the sitting was for the choice of assignees,
and proof of debts against the joint and separate estates
of these bankrupts, described as Russia brokers, of
Austinfriars. There was a large attendance of creditors
present.
Mr. MAYNARD, who appeared for the petitioning cre-
ditor, said there was a number of creditors who sought
to prove upon contracts, the relative positiOn of some of
which materially differed from others. lle proposed to
submit them in regular order to the Court for its de-
cision. The first was that of Messrs. Raleigh and Co.,
for 4,3451., which showed a guarantee on the face of it
made by the bankrupts for John Marshall and Sons, in
favour of the claimants, and which was signed in the re-
gular way. The custom of business at the Baltic Coffee-
house was, he was given to understand, to hold the
broker liable for all contracts made, whether a guarantee
was given or not. With respect to that, however, he
thought in all probability the Court would differ, when
the circumstances of these particular cases eame before
it. In the case of Messrs. Raleigh the guarantee was fully
stated, with the consideration paid—namely, a sovereign.
Mr. Commissioner FANE said, he could not refuse the
proof if no objection was raised. It appeared to him all
regular enough.
Mr. MAYNARD could see no objection to the proof. He
had mentioned it to bring the proofs in regular order
before the Court.

Mr. R. Thornton, a creditor, wished an examination
of the bankrupts, to prove the actual passing of the con-
sideration stated. In a case some time ago before one
of the Commissioners, and in which he was a heavy suf-
ferer, all proofs of this sort were disallowed if it was not
shown that the consideration had passed.
Mr. Marshall (one of the bankrupts) was examined on
this point. lie could not swear that he received the con-
sideration. He usually received it, and made a memo-
randum of it, but for this contract he could find no entry
of the receipt of the sovereign.
Mr. Commissioner FANE was open to argument on the
subject, and would readily hear all that had to be said.
Mr. MAYNARD did not apprehend that the non-pay-
ment of the consideration made a material difference,
for if it h'ad not been paid it was still owing, and was re-
coverable by rate of action. In the case of policies of
insurance it was well known the underwriters made the
premium received, whereas, in fact, they did not receive
it till the arrival of the vessel.

Mr. HUBBARD (who at this stage of the proceelings
entered the Court) said he at the next meeting should
have a number of heavy proofs to put forward on the
strength of a guarantee without consideration. He
hoped, therefore, in the present discussion his case would
not be prejudged before he had had the opportunity
of supporting it.
Mr. MAYNARD said he had purposely abstained from
involving the cases in one common discussion, with the
view to let each stand upon its respective merits. He
then referred to the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds,
for the principle of guarantees, and for which he con-
tended that as long as the consideration was stated it was
sufficient to bind the parties making the contract.
Mr. Commissioner FANE was understood to say that
that was his present impression. In these cases it seemed
that the guarantee was given on the payment of the no-
minal sum of one sovereign for the increase of business.
The principle that Lord Ellenborongh had laid down for
guarantees they had modified to the shortest, and, what
appeared to hint, the best method, for the convenience of
their trade.

After further discussion, in which it appeared that
Mr. Maynard was not quite prepared to go fully into
the whole of the proofs, the consideration of them was
further adjourned, the Commissioner stating that it
would be useless to go into one or two before him now,
as he should not sit again for some time. The better
plan, he said, would be to take the whole of these proofs
before the Commissioner, who would on the next occa-
sion take the cases, and then argue them seriatim. They
then could all be disposed of at one sitting.' Or, if the
creditors throught proper, a day could be set apart for
their consideration.

As the creditors all agreed with the suggestion, a (lay,
it was understood, will be named for the disposal of these
proofs.
Tho debts admitted at this sitting amounted to 21,800/.
and the assignees chosen were Mr. Richard Thornton
and Mr. Charles.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Nov. 1:.
The whole of the actions tried were undefended, and
the Court adjourned at 12 o'clock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Anne Finden, alias Creasy, alias Payne, the young
woman who was charged on Friday last with swindling a
great number of coffee-house and tavern-keepers, a re-
port of which investigation appeared in The Sun of that
day, was again placed at the bar before Sir F. Laurie, for
re-examination. _ _

Sir P. LAURIE inquired of Mr. Clarke, one of those
whom the prisoner had victimised by her specious repre-
sentations, whether he had any further evidence to offer?
Mr. Clarke replied that he had not.
Sir P. Lamm said he was sorry that he could not
deal with the prisoner as a felon. One good, however,
would result from this investigation, namely, the publi-
city given to the facts by the press, which, he entertained
little doubt, would effectually prevent the success of her
future schemes. . _

The prisoner is low in stature, with hard features,
and speaks with great fluency and volubility. Her man-
ners are rather lady-like. After soundly rating several
of the simple persons whom she had deceived, she walked
from the bar with an air of injured and dignified inn°•
cence, saying they were "quite mistaken" as to her real
character and position in society.
An interesting and modest-looking girl, about 16
years of age, was charged with attempting suicide. In
reply. to Sir Peter Laurie, she stated that yesterday
evening she was induced to enter a house of an improper
character with a gentlemanly-looking person, but whose
name she was unacquainted with, but when she found
what description of place she was in, she endeavoured to
escape, but he used violence to detain her, and other.
wise brutally ill.treated her, until her cries brought the
owner of the house to her assistance, when the police
were called, but the ruffian got off. She was afraid to
return to her parents, and consequently meditated sui-
cide. She refused to give the slightest information as to
her name or connections.

Sir P. LAURIE desired the constable to try and find
out her residence, and remanded her to the Compter in
the meantime.

QUEEN-SQUARE.
Robert Smith, a man about forty years of age, whose
appearance and manner evinced his havinc, seen better
days, was charged with having attempted' to break a
lamp in the street.

police-constable of the B division proved that he
saw defendant at eleven the previous night throw two
oyster shells at a gas lamp in Sloane-street. Ile took de-
fendant into custody, when the latter admitted that he
had tried to break the lamp in order to be sent to prison.
Mr. BURRELL asked defendant what he had to say to
the charge ? Defendant—l did endeavour to break the
lamp in order that I might be sent to prison. I have no
roof, no home, no food, no shelter ; nor have I the means
of procuring any.
Mr. BURRELL—Where is your parish ? Defendant
—I came from the neighbourhood of Dorking, Surrey,
but I decline mentioning the name of the parish.
Mr. I3URRELL—Where have you been hying recently

you surely must have some relations or friends ? De-
fendant (despondingly)—l have plenty of relatives, but,
alas! no friends. I failed as a gardener in Kent, and
came to London, where I fell into deep distress. I can-
not beg, and never yet have stolen.
Mr. BunnELL observed that he could not commit the
defendant to prison, as he had committed no offence.
He was, therefore, discharged.
The defendant declared that he must commit an of-
fence for which he would be sent to prison, as it was the
only refuge left to him.
A REPENTANT SlNNER.—Margaret Dodds, a young
woman about 23 years of age, was charged with at-
tempting to drown herself at Westminster-bridge, as
also to-strangle herself in the station-house.
Policeman 126 B proved that at an early hour that
morning he found the prisoner on Westminster-bridge.
She was crying, and appeared to be in so low a state of
spirits that he watched her narrowly. In a few minutes
she ran down the steps towards the water. He ran after
her, and caugnt her at the water's edge. The prisoner
implored him to let her go and do as she wished, for she
was tired of life, and had nothing to live longer for. Ho
then took her to the station-house.
Policeman 188 B said he had charge of the cells, and
about half an hour after prisoner had been locked up he
went to look at her, and found her lying senseless on the
floor, her cap and bonnet strings were tied tightly round
her throat, and her face was black ; he cut the strings,
and the prisoner, after some time had elapsed, was re-
stored to a state of consciousness.

Mr. BURRELL asked the prisoner if she had any rela-
tions ? The prisoner said she had a sister married to a
eoachmaker, at Norwich ; she was respectable, but as for
herself she was an unfortunate woman.

Mr. BURRELL—W hatever troubles you may have,
you must not be allowed to commit the crime of self-
destruction. I shall hold you to bail.
Prisoner—Oh take me from the life I've been leading.
Send me to some asylum. I'll do any thing rather than
again lead such a horrid life.
Mr. BunRELL—I am glad to hear you say that ; you
are desirous of again becoming a respectable member of
society. You will go to prison for the present, and
something shall be done for you.
The prisoner fervently thanked the Magistrate as she
left the bar.