The Sun.
London, England, 1847-08-04 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Aug 3

IN RE ANGUS DUNCAN.
Angus Duncan was opposed by Mr. Cooke for a Mr.
Lookina e. He was supported by Mr. Nichols.
The opposition to this insolvent was upo the ground
that he had contracted a debt with the it of the cre-
ditor before the marriage, sad that he had subsequently-
obtained various small loans from the husband on false
represebtations. Th insolvent had been in business for
about two years at Rea 'ing, as a brew. r. He had also
been a m-rcbant, but was educated for the medical pro-
fession in Edinburgh, a here, about twenty years ago,
he was greatly admired for his rwer of mind and the
brilliant!) 'of his talents. Ile :l as now a complete wreck,
osing principally to an tiffretion of the brain last year,
by which -his mirad god memory had been very tench
we:dt. ned. The day was occupi.-d in invetigaiintz th,
truth of his rt,pres.u,ations to various p rsoos—uch
that he was to have ao intere,,t in pr, pert), in the West
lielieq, which produced 40.0001. a year ; that he was
going to be rnivried to a lady of fornoe, with other
similar staff-mints. wh ch turn. d glut to b • pure halloci.
nations of probably a disordered i nugination. They,
however, had 1,.d cred.tors to act in a way diff rent to
what they would have dune, had they believed them al-
together u-utrue,

The ins,,l.ent was remanded for the fill extent of the
discretionary clause—tiatn4,lv. •ix calendar months.

BLOOMSBURY COUNTY CO(/RT, Aug. 3.
(Before EDWARD DURDIS, Esq.)
LEK v. ROBINSON.
This wag an action to compel the defendant to restore
a NeAfoundknd dog, the prop.,rty of the plaintiff
The plaintiffl stayd chat the dog was his
,prop-rty.
He lcivrthe anniaaj. )n''Oxrdril- street in May last, and
could hear nothing shout it till a few eeits since, when
he saw the defendant leading it down Ptee.tdiliy. Wit-
ness claimed the dog. but the defendant refused to give it
up, :illeging that he had no proof of its being his pro-
perty.
The defendant admitted having found :he dog, and was
nuts- willing to return it, hut he expected that the ex
penses ot its keep wool I be defrayeto.
The plaintiff denied his lia-ulity. and
The Learned JUDGE ob-en ved, that as he had not ad-
vertised t:-Et d.tv, he could not claim the expvt,ses. Per-
&tits upon iitang hogs, bet:tre they can establish such a
claim, must insert an a lvertisement iu one or rn:tre of
the tri-rnin:riturnals, to the eff.-et that unless the animal
was claimed within a certain pertod, it would be sold to
defray the expeuses of the advertisement, Ste. A print. d
bid was not sufficient. but at:er the publicstion of the
adv: rtisement the fin ler of sueh pro:.erty would be at
liberty to tieTose 01 it to the best wivdnuage.
The Cohn then directed the dog t be returned to the
owner.

POLICE liv TELL. I(i ENt:E.
M A NS/0 N-Hoi/SE.
A tobacconist, P of the name of (}rattan, was
brought before Alderinsti Gibbs, charged with having
committed vi lent assault- up .n several person.;.
The prisoner went in a state of intoxication into a
public house calkel the Pe.ic-ek and drank two bottles
of soda-water, for which he refused to pay. The waiter
having pressed him fir the morey rec, ived a knock-
down blow, upon which the pile.• were requested to
inter ere. Tne moment the defendant found that things
were becoming serious he struck and most desperately
kicked the officer. so that more than half a dog .n of
them were occupied in the task of overpowering him.
The language be used was quite in character with
his acts.
The defendant said he was quite ready and willing to
pay for the repair of tiny damage he m'ght have done to
the clothes of t,,e police; but it was evident he thought
the injury he had intl cted upon their persons (mil one
of them was under the care of a surgeon in consequence
of his vro:ence) was matter of no consideration, fur he
mentioned his diunkenness as an adequate excuse for
that misconduct.

Alderman Gums sentenced Mr. Gratton to pay 104_
for hi intoxication, the trill for having turn the shirts
the police, and a naontit's imprisonment in Bridewell
for the assault upon the officers. lle also directed
that the defendant when his time should he up in Bride-
well, should find security fur good behaviour fur twelve
months.

The defendant begged for the remission of th.. impri
somnent in Brid,,well, and said that his family had claims
upon his inlustry, which must b.-. attended to.
Alderman Glans was of opinion that the alternative
punishment whico the law gave the magistrate the power
of ',acting' in such cases was of the greatest use to. so-
ciety, for those delinquents who disregarded a pectin" .ry
penalty looked with t rror at a month's pmst,me in such
a place as 131 ide el I.—C. bin mi t fed.

Mr. George RossG,UIL DHA LL.
the matiag. r of the Heir at Law
Society, attended before Sir Peter Laurie, to answer the
charge of obtaining money from certain individuals by
pretending that there was a sum of 220,000/. divisible
amongst tho,e who could show their affinity to Charles
Barber who died in C deutta, in. August, 1709, there be-
ing, in fact, it was alleged, no such tund for division.
Mr, (lorry, the barrisyr appeared for Mr. Ross.
I.llr. Champ, clerk to Mr. Savory. stater that he ap-
peared for the coirplainant. On the 25th of January,
1846. an advertisemi.nt appeari.d in the Dispatch, re-
quiring persons of kin to Charles Barber to come forward
and claim to virticinato in 220,000/. His client in con-
sequence called at the society's °ff.°, and was assured
th it there was not only 220,0001 waiting to be claimed
:Ind distributed, hut the accumulation of interest for
riy five years, which must have swelled that sum to
400.000/.

Sir PETER LAURIE asked who Mr. Barber was?
Mr. Champ ri plod thi-re was a nreat East. India
figeney. house, knuwn as G.ekt.rell, Palmer, and Co., aLd
Mr. Ba r was the he.td of it.

Sir P. LA cam said it would sive time to hoar the story
from Parkin himself.

Parkin proceeded to state that after two or three calli,
having in the meantime com.ulted various member" of his
family in different parts of England, he asked Mr. Rost.
what the xpense of empl tying. the 806 ty to rt cover rho
money would be. Ile repied, " Our charge is twenty
per coot." Ile i;a.d they %out,' have to file a bill in
enanuery against the executors, and that 21. 4s. 6d. must
be paid for oolitueers °Flail:Hl on the vase, end 20L for

fi'ing_the bill, but f9ur persons would b.- unde-P.,ettiClte
it, and each wou!.i ihereiore have only Sl.. tO PSP Ls ;
Sir PETER LAC:RIE asked what pr,ot there waste
there were no suOi funds for distribution ?
Mr. Simmois, clerk to Aft sirs. llab and Brown, „of
Boswell-court, said they were solicitors to the execut
a,TI
and had filed bid in Chancery fur distribution. n
whole assets or (.;harks Barber were administered; lor
distributed under the direction of the Court. The -°9l
sum remaining in the hands of the accountant vvasl, •
which was allotted to some or.e who did not live lopet
enough to receive his share, and whose represeniativ
had not made any claim. I
Sir PETER LALUR,E said he knew the firm of Ilal AA
Brown to be one or .good repute, and therefore he retie'
upon what was now stated to him. Pe asked whet
the
do
fnodrst3s.
the amount of the whole estate. .1111
had occurred of /I at
pea in.. from memory
raid,
ago,k
was 50.11)0/ bet
Mr. Harry begged to observe that the secret Wallo
be thought the filh°°
this was a friendly su t in Chancery, and it,we4 the Iron
licitor for the executors who was present, but the._pato
perty was in fact divided, only part was hroughg to"
account, and 70,000/. rionained yet due. Thee xec„,a it/
might be ignorant Jr it, hut the deceased had Prl'uti t,
to that amount which was not brought into het)iloi t
which remained in wroog hands, and which it weed •st
and proper the society should' procure for the °4
of kin. Afit the
Sir PETER LAVRIE said it appeared to him, to
society had dt laded the poor man by holding °110; of
him a chance of participating in an immense su

money.
Mr. Horry said he was not a deluded, but a aiscrp.
tented man. He had paid for an opinion and a thesb erbia•
Lion towards a bill. He hal the opinion, en, prtr
was prepared. (Mr. Horry produced it.) I",ehie" If
sentations were untrue, it was the complainee.-„Ve
who had made them. There was a fund of 70,0uy-181
untouched. lie did not speak of making eer6l the
fund what had been paid to them under an order 0
Court of Chancery. He did not impugn the cello(
ne simply stated that they did not discover the Wu°
the property of the deceased.
Mr. Champ submittt d that what passed et ar tiattril
the 51 was paid by his client, was enough 10 al"cerept
a case of false pretences against Mr. Koss. ,v-riata
was tool the bill had then actudly been tiled, sir
rf the
heard next day at Westminster. SeXeri,,,„` ,iane
oarties went there next day, and were ale ".7 A' gia•
parties from the Heir-at-1.4w Society, who et":upy
rr.icure was No. 2, but• that N. I would prrrbably
the whole day. Now here was the bill brill
fhe ht so obtained ha, I been scraped togelll;nab:i'of
subscription of ten shillings each from 31--1110
poor people, who were driven to extreme shifts t°
even ten sbiltings.
0450 be
Sir PETER LAURIE said, if he made out that
should have no hesitation in sendin the eabe,:°
but he would adjourn the further hearing on that
•
till Thursday.