The Sun.
London, England, 1847-10-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Oct. 26.
Two Commissioners sat to-day, Messrs. Evans and
Shepherd. Before the latter there was a certificate
meeting in the matter of F. H. Kemp, a bankrupt,
who was a grocer in Uxbridge. The certificate was
suspended for three months, on the ground of dealing
in accommodation bills. There was a meeting for tha
choice of assignees in the bankruptcy of Jonathan
Duncan, formerly proprietor of a weekly newspaper,
called the Sentinel. Mr. Thomas Edwards, of Nor-
folk-street, Strand, was appointed assignee. Before
Mr. Commissioner Evans nothing of interest occurred.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Oct. 26.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HARRIS.)
IN RE THOMAS SPINES.

This case was mentioned a few days since in our
eolumns, and had stood adjourned for a necessary
correction in the proceedings. The insolvent was a
butcher, and petitioned under the 7th and Bth Vic-
toria, c. 96, but upon a former occasion a doubt was
expressed by the Learned Commissioner whether the
case could be entertained, inasmuch as the debts
owing by the insolvent exceeded 3001., and were only
brought within that limit by deducting sets-off on
the other side of the account.
Mr. NicaoLs to-day, on behalf of a creditor, ex-
pressed a desire that the petition should be sustained,
as there were considerable assets to be distributed
among the creditors.
Mr. Cools, on b, half of the insolvent, contended
hat the Act of Parliament was to be construed
liberally, and in consonance, as far as practicable,
with the law of bankruptcy, and referred to the "con-
struction clause" of the sth and 6th Victoria, which
enacted that a trader might petition the Court when
be owed debts amounting in the whole to less than
3001., the amount of such debts to be ascertained by
the law in bankruptcy. That law was the 6th Geo.
IV., c. 10, and in the 50th section it was provided
that where the bankrupt had given credit to another
person, or where there were mutual debts existing
between the bankrupt and another party, the Corn-
missioner should hear and decide between them the
sum which shall appear to him to be actually due as
a balance from one party to the other. Therefore, in
bankruptcy it was plain that the amount of a debt
was ascertained by reference to the adjustment of the
set-off, and consequently this Court, continued the
Learned Counsel, was bound to act in accordance
with the law of bankruptcy, and allow the amount of
debts to be assumed, after deducting the sets-off
claimed by the insolvent against the particular credi-
tors in his schedule.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS said the point was one
of considerable importance, and as the decision in this
case would be adopted as a precedent, he should allow
the question to stand over until the day appointed for
the final order, November 20.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
John Press, 38, drayman, and Richard Pratt, sur-
rendered to take their trial upon an indictment which
charged the former with stealing a kilderkin of ale,
the property of Messrs Truman, Hanbury, and Co.,
alai the latter with feloniously receiving it, knowing
it to have been stolen.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Wilde prosecuted. Mr. Bal-
lantine defended Press, and Mr. Clarkson appeared
for the other prisoner.
From the evidence of a drayman named Shepherd,
also in tlre service of the prosecutors, it appeared that
on the 11 th of September he was engaged with the
prisoner Press in loading a dray with ale and beer for
customers named Howe and Cockett, and when the
dray was loaded Press went into the counting-house
for the delivery notes, and on his coming out said he
must have another barrel of treble X ale, and one was
accordingly rolled out and placed in the dray. At
this time it seemed that the kilderkin of .ale in ques-
tion had been improperly placed upon the dray, but
how or by whom was not at all made out ; but after
some of the beer had been delivered, Press told his
companion that he had got a kilderkin of ale to de-
liver, but he did not say to whom. The dray was at
length driven to the Crown and Anchor public-house,
Cheshire-street, Bethnal• green, kept by the prisoner
Pratt, and the kilderkin of ale, which formed the sub-
ject of the present indictment, was taken out, and
Press gave Pratt a note similar to the usual delivery
note, which he signed and handed back to Press, who
went away, the kilderkin of ale having previously, by
Pratt's direction, been rolled close to the staircase.
It appeared that Shepherd, considering the transaction
of a suspicious nature, subsequently gave information
at the brewery, and in the result the present pro-
ceedings were instituted.
In cross-examination the witness Shepherd said,
that the ale was not put down in the cellar as was
usual, and that at the time of the transaction taking
place, the defendant Pratt appeared to be somewhat
the worse for liquor.
Mr. Andrew Marr, the storehouse clerk at Messrs.
Truman and Co.'s, deposed to giving the order for the
beer that was to be delivered to the customers Howe
and Cockett, and that the prisoner Press had no
authority to take the kilderkin of treble X ale that
was afterwards found in the possession of the prisoner
Pratt.

In answer to questions put by the RECORDER, who
interposed,
The witness said he could not give any information
as to how this kilderkiu got into the dray, and it also
appeared that, although according to the rules of the
establishment the contents of each dray ought to be
checked to see that they corresponded with the load-
ing orders, it was not done regularly, and that they
did not even take the precaution of requiring the
drayman to sign the order-book as a voucher for the
receipt of the barrels of beer intrusted to him ; and
the only mode of ascertaining who went with a par-
ticular load was by a reference, in a roundabout man-
ner, to the amount of wages paid each man.
The witness then went on to state, that on the
Tuesday following the delivery of the ale at Pratt's
house he went there accompanied by Mr. Cook, who
was also connected with the firm of Truman and Co.,
and upon seeing them, defendant asked them what was
the matter, and he told him that there was something
wrong with their men, and they wanted to find it
out. Pratt then said that some of their men had left
a cask of ale at his house, but when or how it came
be did not know. At this time the kilderkin of ale
was standing in the passage, and when Shepherd was
brought in, Pratt recognised him as one of the men
who had brought it to his house. Witness then told
him that, as he had not ordered the ale, and they had
not sent it, perhaps he would not object to their taking
it away ; and he replied, "By all means." There
was no order for such a description of ale from the
defendant Pratt in the books.
The witness underwent a most severe cross-exami-
nation by Mr. CLARKSON, and many of his answers
appeared to be given with great unwillingness. He
said that the ale had never been tapped or in any way
meddled with, but was standing on the Tuesday in
exactly the same state in which it appeared to have
been left on the previous Saturday; and he admitted
that the defendant Pratt told him he expected it would
have been sent for from the brewery. He was then
questioned as to whether mistakes were not of con-
tinual occurrence, and that the wrong description of
beer was frequently sent to customers by mistake,
and although he at first stated positively that he did
not believe any such ocourrence had taken place, he
was at length compelled to admit that in one instance
a number of barrels of 365. ale had been sent to a
publican named Crane, at Notting-hill, instead of 40s.
ale, and that when it was returned the drayman had
directions to endeavour to get some other customer
to take it, to prevent the mistake from being disco-
vered by its being brought back to the brewery. It
likewise appeared that some beer had been delivered
to the defendant under similar circumstances, which
had not been ordered by him, and for which he after-
wards paid in the ordinary course. He likewise
stated, that since this transaction the firm had con-
tinued to supply Pratt with beer, and did so up to
the present moment, and he would not swear that he
had not recently paid them as :lunch as 401. for beer
so supplied.
In answer to
a question by the RECORDER, the wit-
ness said that it was
certainly his duty to
orders were properly see that the
that he oughttoexruted, but he did not con-
siderHe considered this ci e check the contents of each dray.
foreman, Thomas oughtLewson ;to
be done by the loading
andif he had performed
his duty this occurrence could nothave taken place.
The RECORDER remarked that it appeared that the
whole inconvenience might have been avoided if there
had been a little more check upon the delivery of the
goods, and a little more care taken to
properly executed. see the orders
Thomas Lewson, the loading foreman, provedthat
be received from Mr. Marr, writing thequantity
of casks of beer, and all that were required, for Messrs Howe and Cockett, and he told Press to get his dra.y
loaded, and he, gave him the paper to get what was
required. lie came back soon afterwards, and said
that he was loaded.
The RECORDER asked hire whether he did not go
to see that that the dray wa.3 loaded according to the
order ?—He replied that he Odd not.
The RECORDER asked him of what use he supposed
lie was to his employers, when, 2nstead of being a check
to the men, he allowed them to be uponachecklhthe-
selves, and load what
they
P'?R'sed to doe witn
that.
said he thought it was Mr. Marx s duty
urs d so
Mr. CLARICSON—And he says 1
and yo ;
the result is, that he does nothing,, you helanh.m
p i.
(A laugh.)
Mr. BODKIN having intimated, at this stop of the
case, that he would not carry the i-?videnee any further
against the accessory,
Mr. CLARKSON put it to the Court whether there was
sufficient evidence to go to the jury, as against him ?
The RECORDER was of opinion that there was not
sufficient evidence to convivit either of the accused
parties. There was an enti; .e absence of any proof as
to the instrumentality by which the cask got upon