The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF BAiVICRUPTCY, Mincir 19.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.)
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF BIDDULPIS, WRIGHT, AND CO.,
BANKERS.
This being the day appointed for the adjourned examination
of Mr. Biddulph and Mr. John Wright (the other two part-
ners, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Jerningham having at the last.
hearing passed their final examination), a very numerous body
of creditors were in attendance, and several fresh claims were
admitted without any opposition.
A claim was made for 6,4761. 9s. 4d. upon the part of the
executors of a gentleman, named Burton, against the separate
estate of Mr. Wright Biddulph, a similar claim having been
already admitted against the separate estate of Mr. John
Wright. The ground of claim was that the money being de-
posited in the bank as a trust fund, it was diverted from its
legitimate object, and used for the general banking purposes,
and being a breach of trust was equally provable against all the
partners.
Mr. Hamilton objected, as the executors upon whose part
this claim was now preferred were perfectly cognizant of the
manner in which the sum in question was appropriated by Mr.
John Wright, and without the slightest knowledge on the
pat of Mr. Biddulph. The trustee now seeking to claim was
equally guilty of a breach of trust with his co-trustee, and un-
til he had first paid the claim, he could not prove against such
co-trustee.
Mr. Commissioner Hor.noYn said that the trust money
should have been invested in the proper funds, but its having
been left in the bank an improper time, and the bankruptcy
of such bank subsequently taking place, he did not see how
any distinction could be properly made between bankers and
other individuals.
Mr. Hamilton said the question was a new one, and he wished
its consideration to be deferred until the next meeting.
A discussion of some length ensued, when
The Learned COMMISSIONER. directed the claim to stand
over until the next hearir.g, as he could not admit a claim for
so large an amount upon a mere deposition.
Mr. Hamilton said that he would certainly oppose the
claim, and also move that the claim formerly admitted for
the same sum against the separate estate of John Wright
should be expunged.—Claim deferred.
A gentleman appeared to claim for an overheld check under
the following circumstances. A bond was givenwhichwas
Government to each holder of their stock, upon en-
dorsed that the interest was to be paid at the kapekein-1i glohsz
of Messrs. Wrights, with whom the moneyhehad b
for the payment of such interest, which t y had received
from the Government of Cuba. A check had been given or
the payment of this interest (or dividend), but was not pre-
sented in due time.
The Learned CoNtmissioNen thought that the claim, under
such circumstances should be admitted.
Mr. Hamilton said the assignees had no objection to the

PRICE 51.

dmisslon of the proofs, but they wished to have the coupons
delivered up, which was done accordingly, and the proof ad-
mitted.
A claim was made by a party for the recovery of a number
of shares of this bank, which he had deposited with the Lank-
rupts as a security for a loan, part of which had been already
paid, and the remainder of which the claimant was now ready
to hand over to the assignees.
Mr. Hamilton said it was a question whether the shares
were not to be considered as goods and_chattels in the re-
puted ownership of the bankrupts, and, as such, it could not be
settled without an application to the Court of Review. The
Lords Commissioners had decided in the affirmative of the
principle for which he contended, in the recent case of ex
parte Watkins, although another opinion was held by the
Court of Review. He, of course, referred to the case of shares
standing in the name of a bankrupt with a secret trust..
The Learned CObIMISSIONER observed that the Lord Chan-
cellor would direct an assignment of stock or shares in "any
public company" to their proper owners, in cases where the
parties with whom they were lodged were bankrupts.
The claim was deferred for further argument.
Mr. George Robins, the celebrated auctioneer of Covent-
garden, claimed to prove for a sum of 1,7051. 12s. Id. He
understood that it would be resisted, and he was told that he
would be only permitted to prove for 2471. I Is. Id. The
circumstances of the case were these :—A few years ago I
was speaking to my banker and friend, Mr. Wright, about
the low rate of interest which I obtained for my money,
upon which that gentleman asked me if I could lend
17,0001. to Mr. Howard, the nephew of the Duke of
Norfolk, at five per cent., to which I immediately an-
swered most willingly, but upon good security. Mr.
Wright then spoke of debentures in the Southampton
Company, but I refused, unless the bankers would give use
their own security. Ttis was agreed to. I advanced the
money ; the shares were deposited in my strong box at the
bank, and the interest was regularly credited in the bankers'
books to my account. I subsequently drew out 5,000/., when
it was proposed by Mr. Wright that Cuba bonds should be
substituted for Southampton debentures, and to that I also
agreed, but still holding the bankers as my security. The
money I had so advanced was handed over to Mr. Howard,
but the memorandum for its receipt to me was only signed by
Mr John Wright, and now I understand it is to contended
that I am only entitled to prove against his separate estate,
although the dealing was treated in the said memorandum as
for "our" house, and holding " ourselves" liable for any loss
which might arise upon the sale of the Cuba bonds. Mr.
Howard repaid the money to the bankers, and I now seek to
prove for the loss which I have sustained in the sale of the'
Cuba bonds at 651., I having taken them at 80/. when the
then market price was 86/. This is my " round unvarnished
tale," which I thus publicly state, lest it should be supposed
that I made so large an advance without adequate security.
Mr. Hamilton said that, if he had known of the memoran-
dum before, no objection would have been offered ; and, after
some further conversation, the proof was admitted.
Mr. Robins then said he thought that he should have had a
share in the sale of the bankrupt's (-state. He was not beg-
ging employment, but he thought that it was justly due to him.
Mr. Hamilton said the assignees had employed those gen-
tlemen who had large deposits, and were considerable suf-

ferers.
Mr. Commissioner HOLIROYD said the matter was entirely
at the discretion of the assignees, and the further hearing was
adjourned for a month. •

ADMIRALTY COURT, M.inem 19.
THE MARRIOTT—COLLISION.
The Learned JUDGE was assisted in this and the following
ease by Captain Robert Welbank and Captain Alexander
Weynton, two of the elder brethren of the Trinity House, the
points in dispute involving questions of nautical skill.
In the case of the Harriott, the principal question in dispute
was, whether this vessel or the Woodpark was in fault, the
latter having received much damage by coming in collision
with the Harriott on the Ist of October last, off the coast of
Suffolk. The Harriott was at the time on a voyage from Lon-
don to the north, and the Woodpark was proceeding to the
Thames with a cargo of coals. The night was dark, and the
Harriott starboarded her helm to avoid the collision, while the
Woodpark, having the wind free, kept on her course, as she
was bound to do according to the rules of navigation.
After hearing counsel on either side, the TRINITY MAS-
TERS said they had no doubt that the Woodpark was close
hauled, and that the Harriott ought to have given way. The
Harriott was in error.
Dr. LUSHINGTON entirely concurred with the decision of
the Trinity Masters, and pronounced against the Harriott for
the amount of the damage and costs.

THE BRITISH DOMINION.
This is a claim for compensation made by the owners of the
steamer Sunbeam against the owners of another steamer, the
British Dominion, for damage suffered by the former vessel
from a collision between them. The facts, as appeared from
the evidence, were simply these :—The two vessels, of the same
size and characters, were steam-tugs, and they together, started
from Hartlepool, on the 26th November last, to tow the Tees-
dale, a brig, then lying at the mouth of the Tees, up the river.
In the darkness of the night they parted company, and did not
see each other till one of them, having passed the starboard,
and the other the larboard side of the brig, they ran into each
other, and the Sunbeam went down. This was the collision
which caused the present proceedings, and the question for the
decision of the Trinity Masters, who assisted the Court also in
this case, was which vessel was to blame.
The TRINITY MASTERS at once decided that " the accident
was entirely caused by the British Dominion having approached
with too great speed, and without that judgment which the
position of the vessels required."
The Cott wr—l of course pronounce for the damage.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

A young man named Richard Winton was brought be-
foro Sir Peter Laurie charged with having stolen a dozen
pair of stockings from the shop of a haberdasher in the
Poultry.
The prisoner was seen to walk into the shop, take the
bundle of stockings openly, and walk out deliberately,
without attempting to avoid observation or to hasten away
with his plunder.
The policeman into whose custody he was given stated
that the unfortunate lei evidently comruittei the robbery
for the purpose of being prosecuted.
Gooch, the turnkey of the Giltspur-street Compter,
one of those good inclined fellows who sometimes are to
be found in situations of the kind, said that he greatly
pitied the poor lad, who, he believed, had not a friend in
world, and, having lost his character, could obtain no sort
of employment. The turnkey added that nobody could
have behaved better in confinement than the prisoner, who
acknowledged that his necessities were so groat that ho
wished to be saved from perishing by transportation.
There was no sort of deception or humbug about the poor
fellow at all. _ _ .

Sir PETER LAURIE—I perceive that be has been a pi-
goner before. _ _

Gooch—He has been in the Compter before. It was
there I bad the opportunity of judging of him, and I have
the greatest compassion for him.
iii Sir PETER LAURIE—What were you in prison for, pri-
soner ? Prisoner—For housebreaking, Sir.
Sir PETER LAURIE—Were you tried ? Prisoner—
I war, and convicted, and sentenced to 12 months' im-
prisonment.
Sir PETER LAURIE—You were guilty? Prisoner—l
was ; I deserved what I received.
Mr. Hobler—What sort of housebreaking was it, for
there are several sorts ? Prisoner—lt was housebreaking
at night in a house in Moorfields. There was no excuse
for it.

Sir PETER, LAURIE—Were you in want at the time ?
Prisoner—By no means.'
Sir PETER LAURIE—You bad accomplices, I suppose ?
Prisoner—l had, but I was the only one punished.
Sir PET ER LAURIE—They escaped, and I dare say per-
Riedel you to join in the affair ? Prisoner—They escaped.
I would rather say no more on that subject. I have suf-
fered the penalty of the law, and I came out on the Ist of
March, and ha, e been walking about ever since, for no-
body will employ me.
Sir P. LAURIE—Poor boy ! I believe there are thou-
sands in the same condition. What is an unfortunate fel-
low who repents the first act of detected dishonesty to do?
Every one is afraid to employ him, and he cannot lie down
and starve. I believe the evidenca given by the Chaplain
to Coldbbth-fields prison, who said before a Parliamentary
Committee, that he never lost sight of a prisoner after the
first introduction to prison until death or transportation in-
terfered.
Prisoner—l am desirous of going out of the country, my
Lord, and I know of no other way of getting out, and I
trust that you will kindly assist me.
Sir P. LAURIE—I shall commit you for trial, and repre-
sent your case, and I hope that you may be treated merci-
fully.
Gooch—His conduct in prison has been quite a pattern
to others.

Sir P. LAURIE—He is committed for trial. Let him be
treated kindly.

KENSINGTON POLICE COURT

Yesterday Mr. Charles Egan, barrister-at-law and return-
ing officer at the last election of guardians for the Kensington
Union, appeared before Mr. G. CLIVE, the sitting magistrate
at the Kensington Police Court, to answer a summons under
the statute of sbth of George 111., cap. 69, sec. 6, which set
forth "that he had possession of certain parish books and
writings belonging to the parish of St. Luke, Chelsea, and re-
fused to give them up for the use of the parish, thereby in-
curring a penalty, not exceeding 501., or not less than 40s.
The interest excited by the Importance of the case, which
is the first of the kind since the passing of the Pot?rt-12:-
Amendment Act, and the fact that owing to the detetiofcrf
guardians
the papers and books in question the election of
e a unionosn ed forpresent thjourttobe
yearcroleyodueldd
byn, not
rbseonpsroienetL.etri ziteridi titn) ,
o

the matter.
Mr. Egan pleaded " Not guilty " toohe charge, but said he
had certain books and papers in his pse:•sion, which he be-
lieved to be the prOperty of the Board of Guardians of the
Kensington Union.
Mr. Loveland said, that the circumstances relating to the
case were shortly these :—The derendant, Mr. Charles Egan,
was appointed relievine•-officer at the last electionppointmen of Gt
uardians
for the Kensington 'Union, under which a Mr.
Egan called upon the churchwardens and overseers of St.
Luke's, Chelsea, to produce certain books and parsers, which,
for the purposes of the election] were left in Mr. Egan's care,
on his promise to return them. Mr. Egan had them in use for
nearly three months, but after the election was over, when he
was asked to return them, he declined doing so, on the ground
that he wanted them for the purpose of substantiating an action
lhe had commenced against the Board of Guardians for V e
amount of his bill. That action had since been tried in the
Court of Queen's Bench, and a verdict given against Mr. Egan,
notwithstanding,- which Mr. Egan still detained the booksani
papers, although it was well known to every one he could have
no her. upon
said oan them'
Ar,
he was going to move for a new trial, and
great moment and ina-
theArrerf.orceLwivarrA
seadidthtehme .ease
was
One
of
After lengthened arguments on both lid
pdoerfetraneheistodeeNzisriympi aurinslttilthhreouigiah(toultntahtemk.eilny
points.lie parties then withdrew, gdoni and he should
considered all the
and as Mr. Egan left the Court
he was served by Pummel, the Kensington beadle, with a Ro-
tire to return similar books,
which he also detains. &c., belonging to that parish,