The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-21 00:00:00

DAY V. CROFTS,

This petition prayed that the Master's report might be
confirmed, and also that the annuities due to the several
annuitants might be paid by the ra2e of certain funds re-
tained in Court. The testator in the cause was Mr. Day,
the c,.lehratf:d blacking manufacturer, who, after giving
certain legacies and annuities, left a sum of 100,0001., and
a sum of 1001. a year, charged upon his pure personal
estate, to the Blind Man's Charity. The Master had not
teen able to a.:certain what portion was pure personal
estltc, and it was, thercfo.e, proposed that the annuitants
should be paid out of the funds in Court, and that of the
sum of 14,000/. a year, which was produced by the trade,
4.000/. a year should be set aside t) pay the interest of the
charity legacies, the parties to have time to apply to the
Court.

His LORDSHIP said he would read the TiEster'J report,
the receiver's account, the affidavits in support of this
applica ion, and the terms of the propoied minute, before
he made any order.

, i COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII, APRIL 20.
AULBOS V. HAYMAN.—LOAN SOCIETIES.
Mr. PLATT moved in this case for a rule to show cause why
a nonsuit should not be entered by leave of the Learned Judge.
It was an action purporting to be brought by the pla'ntiff, as
trustee of the Star Loan Saciety, being an institution esta-
blished for the lcan of money pursuant to the statute. Tire
case ,aas hi and haze LordDeurnan at the London sittings, and
a verdict was had for the plaireiff, for 4/. cn the first count,
and for the defendant in the other two. It appeared that, in
May, 1830, John Hal applied for a loan of al. for twelve-
months, and the defendant became his surety, they giving
their joint and several promissory notes for the payment of
the money—the declaration then alleged the non-payment of
the money. Oa the trial, the father of the plaintiff deposed
that three trustees were appointed, two of whom had resigned,
leaving the plaintiff sole trustee. The Learned Counsel con-
tended that the appointment of the plaintiff being by parole
was riot a good appointment, and secondly, that he could not
legally sue, being at the time an infant under age.
The COURT thought there could be no objection to vesting
property in a party appointed trustee by parole ; but with re-
gard to the plaintiff being an infant, they were of opinion that
there ought to be a rule.—Rule granted.
ANDERTON V. CHAPPER.
Mr. ALEXANDER moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why the verdict for the plaintiff with 1001. damages,
should not be set aside and a new trial had. It was an action
for crim con. tried before Mr. Baron Maule, at the Liver-
pool Assizes, and his application was grounded upon the total
absence of evidence to prove the plaintiff's case, and that the
verdict was against the direction of the Learned Judge. The
plaintiff was the proprietor of the Thorn Inn, at Burnley, and
it was proved in evidence that he was in the habit of beating
i his wife—that he was of drunken and dissipated habits, and was
iat present a vagrant, nobody knowing where he resided. The
defendant was a eabiro -maker, and also a married man, and
there was evidence to show that he had been in the habit
' of frequenting the Inn in the absence of the plaintiff, and
that he was on familiar terms with the plaintiff's
wife, but he denied that there was any evidence
(of a criminal intercourse having taken place. The Learned
Gentleman then read the evidence of one or two of the wit-
nesses, servants who were in the employment of Mrs. Anderton,
of a very suspicious nature, and submitted that he was entitled
to the rule prayed for.
Lord DENMAN said he would have been rather surprised if
the Jury had found any other verdict after such evidence, but
on the ground that the damages were rather large, he should
grant the rule for a new trial.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there were one or two
cases from Lancashire in the Crown paper relative to the
maintenance of prisoners, but as a new Act was at present
under the consideration of Parliament in reference to that sub-
ject, he prayed that they might be allowed to stand over for
the present.
The COURT ordered the cases to be postponed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, APRIL 20.

MUSCHAMP V. TILE LANCASTER. AND PRESTON RAILWAY

COMPANY.

Mr. CRESSWELL moved for a rule nisi for a new:trial in this
case, which was an action to recover the value of a box intrusted
to the defendants to carry. It being directed to Derbyshire
it was tried at the late Lancashire assizes before Mr. Baron
Rolfe, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff. it appeared
that the plaintiff, being a stone-mason out of work in Lan-
cashire, went into Derbyshire, where, having settled, his
mother made up and sent the box in question to one of the sta-
tions of the railway, and delivered it to the Company's servant.
He was informed that it would reach him in three days. She
asked if it would go any sooner if she paid the carriage,
and was informed no, and she did not pay it. The box
was lost. The Learned Gentleman now contended
that as the Railway Company professed to be carriers only
between Lancaster and Preston, they were not bound for any
thing intrusted to them beyond those points. Had they con-
tracted to carry the box beyond Preston, by takingc, payment
for the whole distance, he admitted they would have been
liable. The Company was differently placed from the case of.
a mail coach. In the case of the London and Edinburgh
mail, the parties professed to carry the whole way, and al-
though there might be two or three changes on the road, still
the parties receiving the goods in London must be held liable ;
but here the Railway Company were merely carriers from Lan-
caster to Preston—they pretended to be no more—and he
contended were liable no further.

The COURT had much doubt upon the subject, but as the
question was important, they would grant the rule.

WESTMINSTER COURT OF REVIEW,
April 20.

WRIGHT'S BANKRUFCY.-EXPARTE GRIFFITHS IN RE BID.

DULPII AND WRIGHT, BANKRUPTS.
This was the petition of the Rev. Mr. Griffiths and
others, praying the Court to remove the two bankrupts,
Anthony George Wright Biddulph and John Wright, from
the trusteeship of 10,000/. in the New South Sea Annul.
ties, and to appoint the petitioners trustees in their stead ;
it also prayed that the assignees might be directed to take
the necessary steps for carrying the required transfer into
effect.

The Learned Counsel for the petition stated that the
sum of 14,000/, had been standing in the names of the
firm of Wright and Co., but they had no beneficial interest
in it whatever, as 10,0001. of it belonged to the petitioners,
and the remaining 4,0001. to Elizabeth Macdonnell, Mary
Collins, and others, residing at Winchester, whose annu-
ities bad never been disturbed. The question for the
Court to consider, therefore, was, whether this was a
trust fund, under the Bankruptcy Act, which enabled the
Court, to transfer the trusteeship in the manner prayed by
the petitioners. No question could arise as to the order
and disposition; if there did, he admitted it would be at-
tended with some difficulty, as they could hardly treat it
as goods and chattels; but he respectfully submitted that
this was a fund to which his cheats were clearly entitled
as the beneficial owners. The affidavit upon which he
moved detailed the facts already stated to the Court, and
this statement was verified by the affidavit of Mr. John
Wright, one of the bankrupts, and was corroborated by
the others, in their examination before the Commissioners.
Sir JonN CROSS said it was the duty of the Court to
protect the possible interests of parties who might
hereafter present themselves as claimants. The case must
therefore stand over until the necessary aff►davits were
made, informing the Court of all the particulars.
Rule accordingly.
EX PARTE BLOL'NT IN RE BIDDULPII AND WRIGHT
BANKRUPTS.
This was an application on behalf of a Mining Com-
pany for lease to prove a claim which the Commissioners
had refused to accept without an order from this Court.
The Cover, in granting the order prayed, directed
that the costs of the Assignees should be taken out of
the estate.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, APRIL 20.
A copy of Vie following notice was yesterday po3ted up
in the Court cf Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque
" The official assignees of this Court will exhibit to the
Commissioner en account of the La'ances in acir hands.,
or in the hands of the accountant in bankruptcy, under
esch eltate, on the second Timrsday in every month, at
three o'clock, at which time the elect:l asigncesa.rc par-
t:eulzrly requested to at.end, hi order to verity sued
accounts. "

FAYMEN F OF DIVIDENDS.
We have been infJrmed that a very salutary alteration
has this morning been directed to take place in the pay.
went of dividend=. Hitherto tho Accuuntant-General
hifg
11
cinicks for the offic:al assignee for the payment of each
dividend, and, ,-on heing signed be the otfic:al assignee
(miiy. Were paid at the lLick of Engiand. The aiter;tion
;11).t. Proposed is, that the pi.rty cr parties entitled to rhu
attend oii one day in each week ; that tho

official assignee shall identify the pemns coming to bo
paid such dividends; and that the checks for the payment
shall be signed by the Accountant-General as well as the
official assignee; thus preventing the latter from being able
to make any of those misappropriations of which the public
has lately heard so much.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.
John Burches, a cabman, was charged under the fol-
lowing circumstances :
Mr. Everett, a cab-proprietor, stated that, having
received information that the prisoner was driving
one of his vehicles about, and was ill-using the horse,
and having no authority from him to be driving it, he
went to several stands to find him ; and, after searching
about, he at last found him in Pall-mall East. Having
followed him for some time, and observing his improper
conduct, he at length called a police-constable, and gave
him into custody, when he found he had been driving about
for upwards of three hours.
The proper driver said he left the prisoner in charge of
his master's property while he went to get some refresh-
ment.

In answer to the Magistrate, the defendant said be was
a licensed driver, which he proved.
Mr. HALL, on looking at tbeAct of Parliament, said
that the fact of the defendant being a licensed driver
there was no clause by which he could act summarily
in the case, but he bad the power of ordering him to
find bail to answer the charge at the Sessions, for having
violated an Act of Pediment, if Mr. Everett would un-
dertake to prosecute.
The prosecutor said he would, upon which the defend.
ant put in bail, and the parties left the office.