The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1841.

DUNN V. ALEXANDER.
Mr. Dunn (of Burdett Coutts not.)riety), was in
dance all day, in order to move for n new Uhl in the
above a,sault case, but when the bar had been gone through,
Lord ABINGER said as it was f:en half-past five o'clock
—too late—the appi..;,ition Mtlit ea :id over.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, APRIL 19.

N PETE% HARRIS ABBOTT, LATE AN OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE,

Proceedings under the fiat sent down from the Lord
Chancellor, directed a!,'diast the party described as a mer-
chant, were clmmenced this morLiog, but in the absence
cf counsel to support it, Mr. Anderdon attending on the
part of Mr. Abbott to oppose iti opeoing, the matter stands
adjourned to Wednesday next.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-Arlui 19,

IN RE JOSEPII AGUILAR.

Tl;i3 insolvent, who had been clerk to the Blackwall
Railway Company, and a jobber ii railway shares, ap-
p&d to bn di charged on sur,:ti,s until his Fearing.
It appeared that the insolvent had been twice discharged
under the Act, the last time in 18.'39, and there was now a

mass of rccomrnodation bills in his schedule.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN said it was a shame a man
who was discharged about two years ago should come up
with a schedule of excommodatim bills. Accommodation
bills 7.ere the means of cheating bona fide holders.
The insolvent remarked that one was paid. He ex-
pected the others would have been settled.

- Mr. Commissioner BOWEN declared that it was a very
groat pity that the clause in the last Act was omitted in
the present. He alluded to the provision under which an
insolvent v. ho applied twice within five years was bound to
show that all hi; debt; were necessarily contracted. That
clause was out of the present Act, and it was a very great
pity. This insolvent owed about 5001., contracted in a
short period, without, as it appeared, one shilling to pay
them, and it was a very great shame.
The COURT accepted the bail.
John Attride was opposed by Mr. Woodroffe for a Mr.
Gloucester.

It appeared that some time back the insolvent had made
an affidavit in this Court as surety to bail a person named
William Milton, and therein had sworn himself worth up-
wards of 1,3001. ; he had described himself as a licensed
victualler and livery stable-keeper, and set' forth that he
had property in Addle-hill, Doctors'-commons: The
Learned Counsel now asked him whether the contents of
that affidavit were true ?

The insolvent admitted that th 2 statements in the Effida.
vit were not the truth. He had been told that the affida-
vit was a mere form, and he made it to oblige Mr. Milton.
He bad no property, and he now owed 31
The Learned Commissioner BOWEN, after some severe
animadversions on the conduct of the insolvent, adjourned
the hearing► of the case for the attendance of the detaining
creditor. He should take the opinion of the other Learned
Commissioners, whether such a person as the insolvent
could be believed on his oath, and whether his petition
should not be dismissed.

Robert Wood Ashdown, proprietor of the Leicester
Saloon, was opposed by Mr. Woodroffo for Mr. Jessop.
He was supported by Mr. Cooke.
The insolvent had been three times discharged under the
Act. He did not remember any dividend having been
paid to his creditors under former insolvencies. There
was nothing for them now.

The COL.-711T, after some discussion about the premises
called the Leicester Saloon, adjourned the case for the
Saloon to be given up to the creditors.

DUBLIN POLICE.
COLLEGE-STREET OFFICE.

SOCIALISM IN IRELAND-EXTRAORDINARY CASE

—Mr. M'Donogh appeared as counsel, and Mr. Cantwell
as attorney, for the Society called the " Liberal Friendly
Brothers," to answer the complaint of John Elliott, a
lithographic printer in Cbarlotte•street, and who bad
been one of the members of the Society, for refusing.to
receive his weekly subscription.

This case excited great interest amongst all classes, it
being understood that the refusal was founded on the
fact that the complainant had latterly been in the habit
of promulgating " Socialist principles." 'I he President
(Mr. Barrett, of Bridge-street) and a great number of
the members of the Society were in attendance. Upon
the case being called, at half-past twelve o'clock,
The complainant applied for a postponement, in order
that he might procure the attendance of Mr. Fullam.
Mr. Cantwell objected to any postponement.
Upon the complainant being about to be sworn, Mr.
M'llono:h said he would ask him a few questions.
Mr. M`Donegh —Do you believe in Jesus Christ ?
Yes, I do.

Do you believe in the divinity of the Saviour ? No,
Ido not, but I believe there was such a man. lam a
Socinian Protestant, and so is Mr. Hutton, the member
for Dublin, and so were Locke, Newton, aad others of
the greatest men in the world.
Do you believe in a future state of rewards and
punishments ? Yes, I do.
Mr. Hitchcock—Having professed his belief in a
future state of rewards and punishments, he can be

sworn.

Mr. M‘Donogh—But the question is, by what form
bieelicese•oeuinghsiotme
should he be sworn. Do? you believe the Scriptures to
ebeof them—not in the
be divine and authentic
moit).latilnieanint,
—bult
sworn by.
The complainant was then sworn and stated that
he had been expelled from the socit'
entei;-°e
inae question merely
and solely because he was a SocinianY ~according to
the tenets of that sect, did not bell, •
believe in tae divinity of
Janus Christ.
Mr. Hitchcock—Your summons is not for having
been expelled, but ti.at your weekly subscription w il
not be received. Where i 3 the rule under which "'
' call upon us to interfere. you
Elliott--•• There is no difference between 11. ex p, 4 tog me
and refusing my subscription.
Mr. M'llonogh—What has occurrei to your w3r_
ship s mind is quite right, and in that point of view it
would he competent for me to call on you to dismiss '
the case. But that is not what is sought for by the
members of the respectable society for whom I ap.
I.ear. 'filey desire that the grounds upon which they '
rest their refusal to any manger associate with this man
shall do before the pub!ic ; and I tLink, before I shall '

fendants in their waggon to Birmingham, and were thence
transferred to the railway, to be forwarded to Nottingham.
In consequence of an accident to the train, the goods
caught fire and were destroyed. The Learned Counsel
contended that there was no proof given of a. contract,
which would bar the defendants from sending the goods
by any ether mode of conveyance than their own; and the
railway being the ordinary means of conveyance between
Birmingham and Nottingham, the defendants were justi-
fied in transferring them in the way they had done.
After citing some authorities, the COURT took time to
consider the question.

ROBINSON V. TURNER.
Sir F. POLLOCK moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why the verdict for the defendant should not be set
aside, and a ♦erdict entered for the plaintiff by leave of
the Learned Judge. It was an action upon an agreement
tried before Lord Denman at the last Kingston Assizes;
and the terms of the agreement were, that if the
plaintiff did not permit any one during the
term of fourteen years to keep any post•horses or
chaises for the purpose of letting for hire on the promises,
then the defendant would pay the plaintiff a sum of 25/.
per annum during that period. The action was brought
for the payment of three years before the commencement
of the action. At the trial it was proved that saddlo horses
had been kept upon the premises and the question was
whether they came within the definition of "post-horses
kept for hire."
Lord DENMAN thought the case required further consi-
deration.—Judgmeat deferred.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIL 19.
WALMSLEY V. MATTHEWS.
This was an action brought by the owner of the alleged win-
ning horse at a race which came off last year on the new
race comae at Market Drayton, Shropshire, against the stake-
holder, for the amount of the stakes, 281. The defence was
that the plaintiff's jockey, contrary to the articles, and the
established rules of races, unfairly distanced his opponents by
crossing; and, further, that the jockey was disqualified by the
articles from riding on that occasion. The case was tried at
Shrewsbury en the last assizes, before Mr. Justice Coleridge,
and the Jury found for the plaintiff in the full amount.
Mr. Serjeant LUDLOW now moved for a rule for a new trial,
on the ground that the verdict was against evidence. Three
horses started in the race in question. One was Deception, the
property of the plaintiff, ridden by a professional jockey, named
Booth; the others, Master Harry, ridden by a gentleman named
Byrne ; and Springflower, ridden by a farmer of the neigh-
bourhood. It was proved, at the trial, that Booth, being be-
hind, and his competitors in advance, and close abreast, he rode
Deception between them, so as to press upon both, and nearly
to overthrow Springflower, who was the inside horse. He
consequently came in first, and claimed the race. But the
matter was referred to the Committee, according to the arti-
cles, and the decision was against Deception, on the ground
that the unfair cross was proved, and the crossing horse thereby
to be considered as distanced. The articles of the course also
provided that each of the contending horses should be ridden
by " a gentleman, farmer, or tradesman, and not by a jockey
or paid rider." But it was proved that Booth was a jockey,
in the habit of riding horses at races for hire. Notwithstand-
ing such evidence, the Jury found for the plaintiff.
The Court, without hesitating, granted the rule.

COURT OP EXCHEQUER, APRIL 19.
PARKER AND ANOTHER V. PARKER.
WHITEHVRST moved to reduce the verdict in this
case from 143/. 15,. to 98/. The trial was had at Derby
before Lord Abinger ; it was upon a guarantee. The de-
fendant had become security to the plainfffs for ale sup-
plied to a third party, who bad become a defaulter. The
amount of the ale charged was 981., the remaining 351 15s.
being the value of the casks which had not been returned.
He corneaded that, under the guarantee given by the de-
fendant, he was not liable for anything but the ale supplied,
and not for the easks.—Rule granted.
BISHOP v. FRY AND OTHERS.
This was an action for assault and false imprisonment,
which was tried bctore Mr. Justice Wightman, at the
late S3merset Assizes, when a verdict was found for the
defendants.
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS moved to set aside that verdict
and for a new trial. The niaintiff was a poor man, who
consieered that he was entitled to sorre property in Chip_
stable ; he went there to deliver letters from his at-
torney to the tenants of the property—he remained
outside while a female delivered tire letter to Fry, who
was an innkeeper. As soon as he received the letter be
came out, and seeing the const,ble, he gave both plaintiff
and the female int) custody on a charge of vagrancy.
They were dragged into the inn, detained there the whole
day, and taken before a Magistrate next day, and, of
course, were diieharged. To recover compensation for
that injury he appealed to a Jury, but although all
these facts were very clearly prove], and no evi-
dence was produced on the part of the defendants,
still they obtained a verdict which he could not help say.
ing was a very absurd one.
-Lord AniNonn—lt appears to be sr", but it is usual to
consult the Judge in such case; ; we %%id do so in this.