The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-03 00:00:00

COURT OF .REVIEW, June 2

Sir J. Knight Brune s,.it as Chief Judge is Bankruptcy
this moraing, at Westminster, but nothing of public iuterest
was brought before the Court.

BAIL C1)(111T, June 2.
(Before Mr. Justice WIGOTIBA N.)
TIIE NEW COUNTY COURTS—BOUOUGIt 01 sT. ALBAN'S.
Sir F. THESIGER s:ei:t he had been in:tructed to apply for
a rule c Bing upon lidwartt of SG. Alban's, to
show cause :why a writ of Quo Warrant° should, not issue,
calling upon him to show by what authority he heal the °Uric,
of clerk to the new County Court of St. Alban's. The ques-
tion, he said, turned upon the construction to be put on the
Act recently passed fur abolishing Courts of Request, and the
establishment of County Courts in their stead. There hao
been a Court of lleque,ts at Nutford, a short distance from
St. Albans, and another in St. Alban's. Mr. Ablet, the persan
on whose behalf he applied to the Court, had held the e ffioe of
clerk to the St. Albans Court for a period of five-and-twenty
years. The new Act abolised both these courts, and the
material qUestion was, whether Mr. Ablet was or was not the
person entitled to be appointed to the clerkship of the St
Alban's County Court, which comprised within its limits
Watford. It was the intention of the House of Common,
that the old clerks should be appointed to the new courts.
The old emits were abolished two days before the period
when the new Act came into operation, so that it might be
contended that the office of the applicant was extinct, and
that he had no real claim to he appointed to the new court.
When he applied he was told by the judge that he had ap-
pointed Mr. Gibson to the office.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAS inquired if the appointment was
in the gift of the judge?
Sir FREDERICK THESIGEIt said the judges were appointed
by the Lord Chancellor, and that the clerks were appointed
by the judge, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor.
If the same system was to be pursued, the greatest hardship
would be inflicted upon persons who. like the applicant, had
properly dis harged their duties for many years; he hoped,
therefore, that the Court would grant the rule, in order that
the matter might be argued, and a decision come to, as to
whether his view of the law was correct or incorrect.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN granted a rule, calling upon Mr.
Gibson to show caurse.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 2.
No cute of any importance occurred in this Court to-day,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 2.
(Siftings in Banco.)
The Court took the special paper to-day, and no case o:
any importance occurred

COURT OF BANKRUP'T'CY. June 2.
(Before Mr. Comtnissioner GOULBUaN.)
IN RE MATTHICWMAN.
This morning the Governor of Whitecross-street Prison,
and the solicitor to this bankrupt, made au application of a
singular nature. The insolvent applied yesterday for his
discharge Win custody, having filed his petition. The ap-
plication was not opposed, ana his Honour granted the pro-
tection, which was produced to the turnkey who had the
imo:vent in custody, but he refused to set him at liberty
until a search hail been made as to whether there were any
other writs in the hands of the Sheriff. It appeared that a
writ had been issued in 1842, but no detainer had been
lodged at the prison gates, and the question now was,
whether the insolvent was not again in custody under this
writ. An order setting forth the facts, and peremptorily
directing the discharge, was submitted for his Honour's sig-
nature.

His ilorrouit said that some doubts existed even amongst
Learned Judges as to the extent of protection, and s, eing
Mr. Lawrence present, he would be glad to hear his opinion as
to the operation of detainers.
Dn.. LAWRENCE said, that in the Queen's Bench the War-
den took no notice of any thing but warrants lodged at the
gates; but the Sheriffs considered that if a oischarge was
sent for one writ, yet, it they held another, they must de.
tain on that or be liable to an action for an " escape;" the
keeper, therefore, would not discharge a prisoner if other
writs than those mentioned in the discharge were in the
hands of the Sheriffs.
Ills HONOUR said there could be no doubt that a detainer
ought to have been lodged. Toe cpiesti4 n, however, now was,
whether a person being detained in custocy under a writ
could be claimed as in execution. It was impossible to try
the qeeetten et the gates Sid, therefete, he thought eo the

debt was set forth in the schedule, the insolvent was entitled
to his discharge, but the order was informal by want of the
plaintiff's Christian name; on that being amended he would
sign the order. ,

SECONDARIES' COURT, June 2.
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMEs.)
DAVIS V. THOISIPSON.

This was an action to recover the sum of 6/. 7s. Bd. on a
bill of exchange, of which the defendant was the acceptor.
The defendant had, under a Judge's order, admitted that
he accepted the bill.
SMITII, the plaintiff's attorney, said that, notwith-
standing the admission, he should call a witness to prove
tat the bill had been accepted within the city of West-
minster.

The Learned SECONDARY asked what object there could
be in that. He did not see how that evidence could be ma-
terial, as no issue was raised.

Mr. SAIITII said a question might arise under the Local
Courts Act, and he wished to have the fact on the Learaed
Secondary's notes.
Evidence was then adduced to the above effect, and a ver-
dict entered for the plaintiff.

TODD V. FOOKS.
This was cn action to recover ter goods acid and delivered.
The defendant had facilitated the proceedings as far as
practicable by not pleading to the action, and was now pre-'
sent, and said that he would save alt further trouble by con-
senting to a verdict for the amount.
The Learned SECONDARY—You say you are the de-
fendant, tiut how do I know that?
Mr. Tavr.ost, the plaintiff's attorney, said there could not
be a shadow of doubt about it.

The SECONDARY—Perhaps not; but I must see that there
is evidence—proof positive. If you can identify the party as
the defendant, well and good; it not, go on with the case.

Mr. TAYLOR said he was not prepiired with the evidence
consideriuic the defendant's admission would be sufficient.

The SECONDARY—There is no proof' that this pers. n is
the defendant ; I cannot swear him to the fact. Any person
may come forward to say that to delude the jury. It y,,u
cannot carry the case further you must take a verdict for
nominal damages, as default of plea only admits that some-
thing is due, but not the amount.
The case was then adjourned. Mr. Taylor proceeding for
witnesses—the defendant's desire to save time, trouble, and
expense, being completely frustrated.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, June 2.

IN RE THOMAS lIILSON GILES.

This insolvent, who had been att extensive omnibus pro-
prietor, was discharged under the Act in the course of last
year. He had only two creditors in his present schedule,
one the attorney ho had conducted his case in this Court on
the former occasion, and the other an attorney, who held a
policy of insurance, the premium on which he had paid, and
had sued the insolvent for the money, on which he was now

in prison.
The insolvent's attorney said that the insolvent, who had
been in a large way of business, and was now only a driver,
might be sued on the policy of insurance, and put into prison
every year on the attorney who held the same paying the
yearly sum, and then bringing an acti►►n. D:e insolvent
was liable to imprisonment every year if the holder of the
policy thought proper.
The Court ordered the insolvent to be discharged.