The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-18 00:00:00

BARNARD V. COLES.

This was an action against the late proprietor of the
Rainbow Tavern, to recover the amount of a bond given
by Argent, the defendant's successor and alleged partner,
the plaintiff, and since the execution of which Argent
had become a bankrupt. The case was tried at the
Guildhall, And a verdict returned for plaintiff.
. . . ,

Mr. BRAMWELL now moved for a rule nisi for anew trial
on the ground of misdirection ; also, because the verdict
was againrt evidence. Argent on taking the business, at
a rent for furniture, &c., had covenanted with defendant
not to order more than five pounds' worth of wine without
his knowledge, and not to accept bills. This deed was to
the plaintiff; but, in summing up the case, the Lord Chief
Baron told the jury that it did not follow that plaintiff
had read the whole of it. This was the misdirection
complained of. The Learned Gentleman also contended
that the verdict was against evidence.
Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan.l6.
Davis V. LOWNDES.
This is the celebrated writ of right case, in which
Mr. Sergeant Manning, the other day, obtained a rule
nisi to change the attorney of the demander.
Mr. Sergeant BILES showed cause against the rule,
contending that the objeet of the change was merely
to defeat the arrangement which had been entered into
with the sanction of the Court.
Mr. Sergeant MANNING having been heard in reply,
The COURT directed the rale to be discharged.
PATER V. BAKER.
In this case, which was an action for slander of title,
brought against a survey appointed under the provi-
sions of the Metropolitan Bui;ding Act, and in which
the verdict was for the plaintiff,
The COURT ordered the rule nisi for a new trial,
which was obtained the other day on behalf of the de
fendant, to be made ab. olute.
The circumstances have been frequently fully reported.

COURT OF BAIVKRUPGY, Jan. 16.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
LIABILITY OF PARENTS —IN RE OARRAD.

The bankrupt, who was a surgeon at Hackney, came
up to pass his last examination.
A proof was tendered, on behalf of a tailor, for clothes
supplied to bankrupt's son. An action had been brought
against the bankrupt, and a judge's order had been made
to compel the bankrupt to admit the debt ; and, on this,
it was contended, that a proof could not be maintained.
The Learned CommissioNEß did not consider this was
an undertaking to pay ; it was not like a verdict
obtained.

The Solicitor said it was virtually an acknowledg-
ment, and tantamount to a verdict, as it would have
enabled judgment to have been obtained, if the fiat had
not issued. The question was clear that a father was
liable for necessaries supplied to his son, who was living
with him.

The bankrupt said his son ordered the goods, and he
had a salary- as clerk, and the bankrupt allowed him 301.
a year.
The Solicitor said, that under the poor-law, as well as
the eumwon taw, the father was obliged to support the
son. He did not think that his Honour would consti-
tute himself a judge of appeal against proceedings at
common law.

The Learned COMMISSIONER having looked at the
papers and heard evidence, said the first question was
whether the father was liable, originally the credit
having been given to the son, now of age, and to whom
the bill was made out. On referring to " Chitty's Prac-
tice," he found that there mug be an agreement to pay
signed by the party or some person authorised by him.
The Solicitor said the attorney of the defendant siuned
the consent.

The Learned COMMISSIONER ultimately held that the
proof could he admitted.
The Learned COMMISSIONER, on looking at the pro-
ceedings, said that, according to them, there was 203. in
the pound, but the official assignee said all the good
debts were bad beyond hope, and " property" depended
on the carrying oniof a Chancerysuit.
The bankrupt at last was allowed to pass.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
The Lord Mayor gratefully expressed his receipt of
101. for the poor box, from the Fishmongers' Company,
and requested our reporter to give notice to that effect
in a paragraph.
THE LATE RAILWAY SHARE CASE.—The following
will supply an accidental omission in the report of the
after the discharge of the three per-
sons who were charged with having conspired to defraud
proceedings justice;-room on Friday.
Mr. Aiar g i
s e tolno
him of 1001., stated to the Lord Mayor that he con-
sidered it but fair to assure his Lordship that the gentle-
man named Richard Fennell, who resided in Alderman-
bury, and who had introduced Mr. Scanlan to him, was
altogether blameless in the transaction. Mr. Fennell ap-
prehended that an unfavourable impression had been
made by the' public mention of his name in connexion
with this affair, and hoped that justice would be done to
his character by the candid acknowledgment of the com-
plainant that he had not the most remote idea of any
dishonourable intention on the part of Mr. Scanlan,
whom he had introduced.
BOROUGH-STRET.
The LORD MAYOR said he was persuaded that there
wouldTilombae
Thomas
jomohhenAssiziotnaL: hesitation on
elderlythe
m parta man, was
wt the press to
with
give
publicity to the statement made by Mr. Margetson.
e
uttering a forged acceptance.
James Cook, engraver, 50, Frith-street, Soho-square,
said there was an account between him and the pri-
soner, and the latter came to him on Wednesday, the
14th October, and offered him a bill for 231. 145.. pur-
porting to be accepted by Edward Breese,
26, Hart-
street, Covent garden. He took the bill, and
gave him
the balance over the account, 91. I Is. The bill fell due
on Friday, and was presented to Mr. Breese for pay-
ment, when he positively denied having ever accepted it.
bill
thin question was never ac-
cepted lie had had only
ority.
Edward Breese, harness plater, 26, Hart-street,
cCeopvteendtb-gyarhdimen;osr by
aidthe
his
two bill transactions with the prisoner, but this was not
one of them.
The prisoner said ho had had many bill transactions
with Mr. Breese, and this was one of them.
One of the detective force applied to have the prisoner
remanded for a week, as there were traces of other
transactions which it was but too probable would turn
out to be of a similar character.—The prisoner was re-
manded till this day week.
CAUTION TO ODINIBUS CONDUCTORS.—John Long, a
conductor of one of the Islington to Chelsea omnibuses,
was charged with having wilfully deceived a lady with
respect to the route of his vehicle.
The complainant said she was in company with
another lady at the time she hailed the defendant in
Holborn, and inquired if he went to Tottenham-court-
road. The defendant replied in the affirmative, and
complainant and friend got into the omnibus. The de-
fendant set her down in Piccadilly, and when remon-
strated with in reference to the deception practised,
merely laughed at them. The complainant said there
was a notice on the omnibus, showing the route to be by
way of Tottenham-court-road, but this notice the con-
ductor took off and placed under the seat.
The defendant said he did not hear the lady ask if he
went to Tottenham.court-road, otherwise he should not
have taken her into the omnibus.
Mr. lIARDWICKE said the conduct of the defendant in
deceiving the lady as to the route of his omnibus was
quite inexcusable. It was fortunate for him that the
second lady was not present to prefer a similar complaint.
otherwise he should have inflicted a second fine of equal
severity. For the offence, as proved by evidence, he
should fine the defendant 20s. and costs.
LAMBETH.
STURDY BEGGARS.—Two Poles, one of whom desig..
nated himself as Count Domhicki, and falsely represents
himself to be the cousin to the last King of Poland, and
Joseph Raeihoski, both of them regular and impudent
cadgers, were finally examined on a charge of going to
the houses of several gentlemen in the neighbourhood of
Streatham, obtruding themselves into the houses, and
asking subscriptions in so impudent a tone and manner
as to alarm several ladies. The worthies have been
frequently sent to the tread-mill for a similar offence,
and on one occasion the count was accompanied in his
victimising excursions by a young lady not more than
2.5-(he himself being at least 60), who represented her-
self
The
lei
es the
Gentleman countess.
who is secretary to the Association
of the Friends of Poland, said that the prisoners had