The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-02 00:00:00

STOODIN U. FIZOWDE.

This was an issue directed by the Court of Exchequer
to determine in whom was the property in certain eacts
seized by the Sheriff of Surrey.
Mr. KELLY (with whom was Mr. Peacock) stated the
ease to the Jury. The plaintiff was an old gentleman,
who, having a deep interest in the welfare of a young
man named Middleton, advanced him money to com-
mence business as a brewer. Like most others in that
trade, he wished to speculate in public-houses, and took
the " Harp," in Princes-street, Lambeth, into which he
put a man, named Manton, to manage the business,
which did not appear to answer. Manton was discharged,
and the defendant put into his place. The affairs of
Middleton not prospering, the plaintiff's attorney fre-
quently applied to him for security for the
large sums which had been advanced to him,
and, failing to do so, an action was commenced,
and a judgment obtained; for a sum of between 4,0001.
and 5,000/, under which the goods in the " Harp "
were seized and sold by public auction, at which the
plaintiff became the purchaser of the largest portion of
the goods, which he allowed to remain upon the pre-
mises, in which the defendant was still allowed to carry
on the business as the servant of the plaintiff, but it
not prospering, the plaintiff desired that it should be
brought to an end, which was done. At that time
Middleton owed the defendant some money, which he
could not pay. The defendant then brought an-action
against him, and he, having neither money or any de-
fence, ja lgment issued against him; and, although the
defendant was in the house at the time the former sale
took place, he issued a warrant against the goods of the
plaintiff which remained in the Harp. He would prove
the advance of the money, the regularity of the judg-
ment, the sale by auction, the purchase by the plaintiff
of goods at it to the amount of 1101., and its being left
upon the premises, and then he could not, for a moment,
conceive what defence could be made.

The Learned Counsel proved his statement by several
witnesses, the principal of whom was Mr. Middleton. his
cross-examination merely showed that the action and
judgment against him at the suit of plaintiff was not a
hostile one.

Mr. ERLE addressed the Jury for the defence, and
contended that Middleton was not a witness upon whose
testimony, unsupported as it was, they could safely rely.
He contended that there was no sufficient proof of the
debt due to the
plaintiff, and if the Jury were not satis-
fied of that, then the judgment would be fraudulent, and
the sale under it would not plaintiff; ass the property of the
goods from Middleton to the p
and if that was
their opinion they must find for the defendant.
His Lordship summed up, and the Jury found a vet.-
diet for the plaintiff.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 1.
IN THE DIATTER OF BAANABY DUNNE.
The insolvent in this case carried on business as a china
and ornamental glass manufacturer at No. 202, Picca-
dilly, and at Jermyn-street, St. James's.
Mr. COOKE opposed his application to be discharged,
for dishonest and heartless conduct towards certain par-
ties, on whose account he acted as trustee. lie then
stated the particulars of the case.
Mr. Commissioner LAW denounced his conduct in
months strong.from the date
of his vesting order.
rderedhimto beremanded for 18

Two days ago,
Pierre Mignotie, a shoemaker,
who has been acting lately as one of the distributors of
the Journal du Peuple, was tried before the Paris Tribu-
nal of Correctional Police, on a charge of illegal posses-
He stated in reply
sion of gunpowder, cartridges, and other ammunition.
a question of the President, as to
how he became possesged of the articles, that they had
belonged to his father, who is dead, and that he had kept
them in remembrance of him. When asked if he was a
communist, he replied:—yes, if communion will make
people happy; and when called upon to explain what he
understood by the happiness of the people, he said—" I
mean that the working classes should have occupation,
and that one part of the community should not revel in
luxury, whilst the other part wantsbread." He was found
guilty, and sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment, 50f.
fine to the Treasury, and 3,000 f. to the administration of
direct taxes."