The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Sept, 23.
(Before Mr. Commissioner EvANs.)
G. W. CHURCHES' BANKRUPTCY.

His Honour was occupied during the greater part
of the day with the last examination of the bank-
rupt G. W. Churches, a warehouseman in Basinghall-
street. .

The principal ground of opposition turned upon an
alleged fraudulent assignment to a creditor named
Wilson.

The bankrupt alleged that he owed Wilson the debt
for which he assigned the property to him, and his
answers touching the matter were apparently honest
and candid. When the advocates pro and con. had
concluded,

The CoMMIOSIONER asked the bankrupt to take his
own ledger in his hand.
The bankrupt having done so,

His HONOUR told hiln to refer to Wilson's account,
and to inform him whether or no the entries of the
transactions there recorded were made at the time
they occurred.
The bankrupt replied in the affirmative.
The COMMISSIONER asked him, if such were the
case, how it happened that an entry in January, 1846,
was posterior to entries in May, 1846 ?
The bankrupt replied that he could not tell; it was
the work of his clerk.

CommrssioNEn —And how comes it to pass that
Wilson's name is interlineated in the index ? Bank-
rupt—l cannot account for that.
COMMISSIONER—In this case I have no doubt whA-
ever there has been gross fraud. Looking at that
book, and at those entries, I believe that nothing
whatever was due to Wilson—not a farthing, and
that the whole thing was nothing more or less than
a conspiracy to cheat the creditors, by giving Wilson
pretext to take the property. nder these circum-
stances I feel it my duty to adourn the examination
sine die.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Sept, 23.

IN RE RICHARD ROWED.

This insolvent was opposed by a creditor named
Cook, who complained that he had been deprived of
3/. 6s. by the society of which the insolvent was
manager, without enjoying any benefit therefrom.
The insolvent (who described himself as late ma-
nager of the United Kingdom Mutual Emigration
Society) stated that he had been a barrister's clerk,
which situation he resigned upon starting the above
company, of which he was the orignal projector.
The creditor (Cook) said that the clerk at the so-
piety's office assured him, week after week, that a
vessel was to sail for Texas ; but, at last, that fune-
tionary declared the whole society to be "a set of
humbugs ;" and the consequence was, that no vessel
was provided for his (Cook's) passage, a circumstance
for which, under present circumstances, he felt
thankful.
The Learned emu' COMMISSIONER said he was
sorry the creditor should have wasted so much time
about so trifling an amount, which was too small to
allow of a remand, whatever might be the circum-
stances of the case.

The insolvent was ordered to be discharged.
IN RE EDWARD COOPER PULLIBLANK.

This insolvent, a dramatic performer of some cele-
brity, under the cognomen of Hooper, was opposed
by Mr. Cooke, on behalf of Mr. Cobb, and was sup-
ported by Mr. Dowse.
The insolvent, on being examined, stated that he
passed through this court in November, 1828, owing
7241.; of which he had since paid.about 6001. After
that he was concerned with Mr. Braham in the St.
James's Theatre, which he took after the abdication
of the latter gentleman. In 1839 he became bank-
rupt, as a commission agent, dealing in wine, and ob-
tained a certificate. In February, 1844, he petitioned
the Bankruptcy Court as an insolvent, but was pre-
vented by illness from attending on the day appointed
for obtaining his final order. In April, 1845, he again
petitioned, and obtained his final order.
Mr. Cobb, the proprietor of the Brighton Theatre,
complained that the insolvent had pleaded to an action
brought to recover 3361.; but the particulars of the
demand not being forthcoming, the insolvent's counsel
successfully contended that no vexatious defence
could be proved.
The insolvent was ordered to be discharged

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT, Sept. 23.
(Before D. C. MOYLAN, Esq., Judge.)
THE GREAT WIG CASE.—IRWIN V. MARQUIS OF LONDON

DERRY.
In this case the plaintiff, a wig-maker in Berwick-
street, Soho, sought to recover of the defendant, the
Marquis of Londonderry, the sum of 121. 6s. for
dressing the coachman's wig.
Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Charles Dud for the noble defendant, who, except as
to 61. 65., the price and value of two new wigs, dis-
puted the account.
Mr. DOD applied for a postponement of the case,
on the ground of the Noble Marquis and his steward
being absent from town, but after some discussion, he
consented to go on if the plaintiff was put into the
witness box.
Mr. BURTON said the plaintiff had worked for the
Noble Marquis for upwards of 20 years, and now
sought to recover from his Lordship the sum of 12/.
6s. The principal portion of the sum claimed was
for dressing the state coachman's wig. As the state
and condition of these wigs depended solely upon the
state of the weather, and as Lady Londonderry was
very particular on " state occasions" of her coach-
man appearing with a respectable wig, the dressings
required were very frequant. The charges for these
dressings were, "state • wigs," 3s. each time, and
" undress wigs," 2s. It appeared to him extremely
strange that Lord Londonderry should now, having
for years paid for dressing these wigs, dispute the
point, especially after the house steward had re-
peatedly promised payment. He should call witnesses
who would distinctly prove the work being done, and
that the charges were the usual ones.
Mr. DOD said that on the settlement of a previous
account the Marquis distinctly told Mr. Irwin, in the
presence of his steward, not to dress any wigs for
the coachmen without the brought an order either
in his (Lord Londonderry's) handwriting, or in his
steward's. _ _ .

JUDGE—Does Mr. Irwin deny that the Marquis
gave him any such intimation.
Mr. BURTON—I believe that Mr. Irwin will not
deny that some intimation of the sort was given, but
it was impossible to carry it out. The steward, when
applied to for the orders, always said he was too busy,
but he would send them afterwards.
John Cunningham, in the service of the plaintiff,
said the account ran from 1844 to 1847, during
which time there were four different coachmen. In
1847, when the bill was delivered, Mr. Stretch, the
steward, said he would endeavour to get the money
from his Lordship, but he said nothing about orders.
Cross-examined—Mr. Irwin never told me not to
bring the wigs without an order from the Marquis or
Mr. Stretch. There was not au extraordinary num-
ber of wigs dressed. The Marchioness was very par-
ticular, and would not sit behind a coachman with a
dirty wig.—(Laughter.) Mr. Stretch saw me take
the wigs away when there were no written orders so
to do. The coachman said he had been to Mr.
Stretch for an order, and that I was to take them
away without one. Some years ago we used to have
written orders, but not lately.
Re-examined—One of the coachmen gave me a
wig to alter for a man who is dead now. The top
was taken off and made to fit, as he had a big head.—
(Laughter.) The charge, 125., is quite reasonable.
During the whole of the time charged I never re-
ceived a written order for any of these dressings.
By Mr. DOD—A wig requires dressing about every
ten days. We always charge 2s. for undress wigs,
and 3s. for state wigs. A state wig requires dressing
during the season about twice a week.—(Laughter.)
Lord Craven's coachman has his wig dressed three
times each day.—(Renewed laughter.)
Mr. DOD—Do you invariably go to the coachmen
for their wigs, without receiving anv instruction from
r—res, we nave between fifty and
sixty coachmen's wigs per week, and we receive no
instructions from any one but themselves.
Cross-examination continued—l should think a
coachman who requires his wig dressed twice in one
day rather extravagant.—l never took a wig away
without it required dressing. The Marquis's coach-
men always required dressing, as her Ladyship would
pot sit behind a wig without it was very clean and
nice.—(Laughter.) I never said, " Coachy, you have
worn that wig too long."—(Roars of laughter.)
Charles Josling was formerly in the service of the
Marquis of Londonderry for a year and ten months
as coachman, and wore two wigs—one for state occa-
sions and one in "ordinary." They required dressing
about every eight-or ten days. He had two new wigs
whilst there, and went to Irwin by Mr. Stretch's
cirder. He had frequently asked Mr. Stretch for
written orders, but he always put him off.
James Tolman, was coachman to the Marquis of
Londonderry thirteen days, and had an order from
Mr. Stretch to get a new wig. He was asked to
wear an old one, but refused, as he did not care about
putting on a wig worn by his predecessor.—
(Laughter.) He went in the new wig to Bucking-
ham i'alace, but did not have it dressed whilst he
stopped in the situation.
George Wilson, now coachman to Earl de Grey,
and formerly to the Marquis of Londonderry—From
the 9th of February to the 7th of September he had
the state wig dressed six times, and the undress wig
thirteen times.—(Laughter.) Was particular in the
account, because he at first thought he should have to ,
pay for the dressing himself. Never had any written
orders. In August, 1846, on the occasion of Lord
Seahatn's marriage, a second wig was borrowed
for another state coachman—(Laughter)—for which
ten shillings was charged. He thought that very
reasonable. He always sent his wig to be cleaned
when he thought it required'it, and would as soon
have thought of taking her ladyship out with dirty
cattle as appearing in her presence with a dirty wig.