The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-07 00:00:00

FLUID THIS MORNING.

About a quarter past two o'clock this morning the
electric fluid struck the roof of the house and shop
belonging to Mr. Thomas Whitelow, leather dresser,
&c., si, Paulin-street, Bermondsey. Information was
furnished to the engine stations of the outbreak by
police-constable 159 M. The parish engine was got to
work, but the workshop and the front of the dwelling-
house was destroyed. Insured in the Phcenix office, the
stock in the amount of 3201., and the building for 2001.
The family narrowly escaped.

SERIOUS AOCIDENT TO A POLICE-CONSTABLE BY THE
LIGHTNING.—This morning, about half-past one o'clock,
as police-constable 56 L was on duty in the New-cut,
Lambeth, during the violent storm, he was struck with
the electric fluid on the left side of his head, which
felled him to the earth. He was instantly picked up by
124 L, who was on duty on the opposite side of the road,
and conveyed to the station-house in a state of insensi-
bility, when it was ascertained that the left side of his
head and several parts of his body were much injured,
so much so that he will not be able to return to his duty
for several days.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat in the old hall, Lincoln's
Inn, to-day, to hear appeals.

BLAU& V. BROMLEY.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case, which was argued before him some time since upon
appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram.
The bill was filed by William Thomas Blair and Thomas
Blair, the executors of the will of the late Thomas Blair,
who died in 1828, and the object of the suit was to
make the defendant, Joseph Warner Bromley, person-
ally answerable for 4,5001., which were remitted by
the plaintiffs in their capacity of executors, to the de-
fendant and his late partner, William Bromley, and re-
ceived by them for the purpose of being invested, but frau-
dulently misappropriated by William Bromley. The
defendant and his brother entered in partnership as soli-
citors, in May, 1820, and continued in that relation, car-
rying on their business or profession in Gray's Inn, until
December, 1834, and, during that period, they kept
their joint banking account with Messrs. Rogers and Co.
The late Thomas Blair, a gentleman of fortune, had for
several years before his death been in the habit of em-
ploying the firm of W. and J. W. Bromley for making
investtnents, but William was the partner with whom he
was on terms of intimacy, and who attended to his
affairs ; and after the testator's death, his executors,
who resided at Bath, continued in the same manner to
employ :he firm, but appear in general to have addressed
themselves to Mr. W. Bromley. By his will the testator
gave his wife a life interest in all his property, and after
her death directed a distribution in certain proportions
among a eumerous family of children. His pro-
perty appeared to have consisted principally of
money lent on mortgage, on one of which a sum
of 14,0001. was due by the late Earl Grey, which
however, was paid off in 1829, and the money
was lodged in the Bank of England, to the separate ac-
count of W. T. Blair, who was the acting executor.
Immediately upon the payment of this money, Mr. W.
T. Blair wrote a letter, dated June 30, 1829, and ad-
dressed to Messrs. Bromley, but beginning with " My
dear Sir," in the singu ar, and requesting that steps
might be taken to invest the money upon freehold
security. In pursuance of these instructions, it was
arranged that 4,5001., part of the 14,000/., should be lent
to a Mr. Isaac Seabrook ; an abstract of that
gentleman's title to the property which was to be
the subject of the security, was laid before Mr.
Bellenden Ker, the convey-sneer, and a draught of
the m)rtgage deed was prepared by that gentleman.
Thes A papers were indorsed in the usual way, with the
names of W. and J. W. Bromley. William Bromley
then wrote to Mr. W. T. Blair for a cheque for the
money, and the latter, in a letter dated " Ilfracombe,
29th September, 1829," sent a cheque, dated the Ist Oc-
tober, 1829, drawn on the Bank of England in favour of
Mr. Seabrook or bearer for 4,500/., and crossed with the
name of the bankers of Messrs. Bromley. On the 2d
October the cheque was paid into Messrs. Rogers bank
to the credit of the joint partnership account of the
Bromleys, and was on the following day cashed by the
Bank of England. Some difficulty, it appears, arose in
the completion of the mortgage, and eventually the ne-
gotiation went off, and the money was never advanced,
but no notice of this was given to Mr. Blair, or to

any other member of the family; on the contrary, they
were led to believe that the money had been invested.
In a letter written to Mr. Blair, in April,
1830, among the several mortgages enumerated as be-
longing to the estate of the testator, the sum of 4,5001.
was mentioned as advanced to Mr. Seabrook, and in-
terest was regularly paid upon it to Mrs. Blair, the
testator's widow, until the time of her death.
That event occurred in November, 1841, and
CIIVIJIUIe tamer SOC Will.
Mr. William Bromley, however, represented that there
were difficulties in making the distribution, and advised
the institution of a suit for the administration of the
estate, which was accordingly done, but no money what-
ever was paid on account of the securities from the death
of Mrs. Blair. The suit was manifestly advised by
William Bromley for the purpose of staving off the
necessity of his rendering an account, and it was so
managed that it made no progress. In June, 1844, his
affairs came to a crisis, and a fiat in bankruptcy was
issued against him. Mr. Blair, on hearing this, hastened
to his solicitor's office to take possession of the securi-
ties; Seabrook's mortgage was not to be found, and it
then came to light that Mr. W. Bromley had appro-
priated the 4,5001. for his own purposes. No imputa-
tion whatever of any participation in the criminality of
his partner was made or desired to be made against the
defendant; far from it; it was admitted that he was
altogether ignorant of the fraud; and the plaintiffs, in
taking the present proceedings against him, only sought,
h responsibility,
ilead
o h
admitting
ghis moral innocence,
to
principleestablish
that
onehis
legal
partner is responsible for the acts of his co-partner.
The Vice-Chancellor Wigram, upon the case coming
before him, (rave judgment decreeing that the defendant
should pay the 4,500/. with interest, and the costs of the
suit. The Lord Chancellor, after going at some length
through the facts of the case, stated his opinion to be that
the decision of the Vice• Chancellor Wigram was correct,
and ordered it to be affirmed with costs.

SECONDARIES.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMES.)
ANDERSON V. BAINES AND ANOTHER.

The plaintiff in this action is a silk dresser and presser
in the City, and the defendants silk•merchants, &c.
The action was brought to recover the sum of 51. 17s. 9d.
for work done.

Defendants pleaded the general issue.
On the part of the plaintiff it was shown that he had
for some time previously to February last been in the
habit of pressing and dressing silks for defendants, on
account of a manufacturer named Douglas ; ultimately,
however, defendants gave a general order for plaintiff
to call on them for goods, and accordingly work was
done to the amount claimed. Douglas had been charged
with the orders up to that time, but had not paid.
On behalf of the defendants, Douglas was called, and
proved that he supplied the silks to defendants, but they
were not pressed lid contracted with plaintiff to send
to defendants for them to dress them as required. Ile
had charged defendants as though they were pressed,
and had been paid, but did not pay plaintiff. lle could
not, however. say whether the goods now claimed for
had been sent in or charged for by him, lie was not in
confinement for debt, having failed for 20,0001.
Mr.llawiuNs, for plaintiff, contended that the contract
with Douglas had been abandoned, and that defendants
gave the order on their own account.
The Learned SECONDARY was about to sum up, but
the jury said they were satisfied, and gave a verdict for
the amount claimed.

INSOLVENT COURT-(THIS DAY)

IN RE ROBERT BEAU, JUN.
This insolvent, described as a sharebroker, was op-
posed by Mr. Nichols for Messrs. Ai!sop, sharebrokers,
and a Mr. Carloss. Ile was supported by Mr. Dowse.
It appeared that the insolvent, a young man, began
business in May, 1845, and ended in January last. lle
had a capital of 8501., which he had lost, and now owed
3,3001. He had been a jobber in shares and in the funds.
He borrowed 1501. of Messrs. Allsop, of Hull, where he
carried on his business, on a promise to return the same.
He was a defaulter to Mr. Carloss, and the matter was
referred to the members of the Hull Stock Exchange,
and they made a report that 1091. Bs. 3d. was due to Mr.
earloss, who was now a solicitor. An action was brought
in Middlesex, and a verdict given for the amount. The
costs were 491., of which 301. had been incurred by the
plea.
The insolvent admitted that he had been a jobber as
well as a broker, although he had only described himself'
as a sharebroker.

In the course of the case he contradicted the evidence
given by one of the firm of Messrs. Allsop, and also
that given by Mr. Carless.

The complaint against the insolvent was twofold--
fraudulently contraciing a debt, and also vexatiously
pleading to the action brought by Mr. Carloss. The in-
solvent had dealt with Messrs. Alisop aster he had.ob-
tained the money.

Mr. Commis;ioner PHILLIPS told the insolvent he
would send for a person from Hull to ascertain the truth
of schue statements as to Mr. Allsop.
The insolvent, on being pressed, admitted that he
might have acquiesced in the report as to the sum due to
Mr. Carloss.

Counsel having addressed the Court,
Mr. Commis Toner PHILLIPS held that the subsequent
transactions with Messrs. Allsop condoned the complaint
as to the sum of 1301. The insolvent bad in a most au-
dacious manner contradicted the evidence of two gentle-
men. Ile had vexatiously defended the action brought
by Mr. Allsop, and he had described himself as a
stockbroker and jobber. lie would be remanded for a
considerable period.—Judgment deferred.

ST. PETERSBURG, JUNE 23.—His Majesty the
Emperor has just issued a ukase to the Stattholders of
the Transcaucasian provinces, facilitating the commer-
cial custom duties ou the east coast Qf the 13144 Sell"

PUGILISM.—SAMUEL SIMINIONDS AND T1103.1A3 LANE,
FOR 200 Sovs.—The encounter of these knights of the
knuckle, which, from sundry misunderstandings as to
the " venue," seemed more likely to end in a postpone-
ment, or magisterial interference, was yesterday brought
to issue on the borders of the counties of Northampton
and Bucking Lam. The men met in, fistic fray at four
minutes after three, and at ten minutes to tour o'clock,
Simmonds's second, Johnny Hannan, threw up the
sponge in token of defeat, at the close of the 26th round.
The battle was by no means remarkable for the scientific
manoeuvres of either men. It was characterised by
fast, wild, rushing exchanges, and the punishment was
pretty equally balanced. Sinimonds returned to town
last night, and Lane, accompanied 133 his brother Ham-
mer Lune, departed for 13irrninghamt bearing the tidings
of his victory.
—•