The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-04 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

BELL AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES, V. SAMUEL.
This was an action (in part heard yesterday) brought
by the assignees of a bankrupt of the name of Pike, who
carried on business as a jeweller at Brighton, to recover
the sum of 1,2691., the value of goods obtained by the
defendant on the eve of the bankruptcy of Pike.
Mr. Whitehurst and Mr. Huggins appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. M. Chambers for the defendant.
From the statement of the Learned Counsel for the
plaintiff, it appeared that the bankrupt and the defendant
were upon the most intimate terms, and that the former
acted upon many occasions as the referree of the bank-
rupt, and represented to various tradesmen, from whom
goods to a large amount were obtained, tha; he was a
perfectly respectable and honest man, and that he did
not owe him a farthing. A person of the name of
LAeson was among those who were induced by these
representations to part with goods to the amount of
upwards of 300/., for which the bankrupt gave him bills;
upon these bills becoming due they were dishonoured,
and Levs,s,..._wais.,,d_npon.. the defendant, who then told
him that the bankrupt was indebted to him in the sum
of 1,2691. Within a few days from the date of this
interview the defendant issued execution upon the goods
and stock in trade of the bankrupt, and obtained posses-
sion of it all. It was now contended that the whole
transaction was a fraudulent one concocted by the par-
ties for the purpose of defraudir:g the rest of the ere-

ditors.
A number of witnesses were called on the part of the
plaintiff in support of the above statements.
Mr. CHAMBERS called witnesses for the defendant to
prove that the whole affair was perfectly bona fide, and
the various proceedings in the action, under which exe-
cution was obtained, were put in, for the purpose of
corroborating their evidence as to the genuineness of
the transaction.
Mr. WUITEUURST having replied to the evidence,
'I he LORD CHIEF BARON summed up to the jury,
going through the vt hole or the evidence with great care
and tn inuteness.
The jury consulted together for a few minutes, and re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff tor the sum of 1,2601.

COMMON PLEAS.—kTHIS DAY.)
BROWN V. SNITII.—STEAM-BOAT COLLISION.
against the proprietors of the Bee steam-
This was an action brought by the Waterman Steam-
boat Company
boat, to recover damages for the latter boat strikin,
No. 7 Waterman, whereby she was seriously injured,
and sunk in the River, on the evening of the 13th of
November last.
Mr. S. Wortley and Mr. Miller were for the plaintiff,
Mr. Sergeant Wiikins and Mr. Brown for the efendant;
(The case was proceeding when our report left.)

BANKRUPTCY.-CTIIIS DA
IN RE CAM-RIGHT OF CREDITORS TO INVESTIGATE

Y•)

PROCEEDINGS.
unTdehristhlev
Colchester.
a es
stt ha et e doary
thaips pboai
nn
kt erdu
pfto, for
wchhoo i cwea
so of
daraipgenreaest
Mr. FRASER, a solicitor, appeared on behalf of Mr.
Morley, of Foster-lane, to prove a debt, and sought to
invalidate the proceedings, on the ground that the act
of bankruptcy had not been proved, the witness to the
declaration being the petitioning creditor.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said, in the first place,it
was wrong for the usher to have shown the proceedings.
No one creditor had a right to see any but the public
proceedings ; the private proceedings of opening the
fiat ought not to have been shcwn. The officer of the
Court, therefore, had committed a breach of duty, and
Mr. Fraser had no locus standi to discuss the validity
of t he proceedings.

Mr. FRASER said he considered he had a right to see
who was the petitioning creditor, as in the Gazette his
(Mr. Fraser's) name appeared as solicitor to the com-
mission.

The Learned COMMISSIONER said that was an error
at the Gazett: office, or of the messenger, but it did not
give a right for Mr. Fraser to dispute the adjudication:
in fact, the ground urged would not hold good, for the
proof of the signature to the declaration of bankruptcy
was not required by the twenty-second section of the Act
sth and Gth Victoria, but some of the Commissioners
wished to have an affidavit that it was the right party,
for in one case proceedings were taken against a John
Smith, of Oxford-street, and there appeared to be lour;
but by Lord Denman's Act any person was a competent
witness aho was nut a party to the second, and in this
ea-e he was nut; and in exparte " Hills and others v.
Montague," Lord Eldon said, that when there was in-
competency, it was only a subject of objection at the
time, and did not invalidate the proceedings.
Proof of debts were taken, but, several being disputed,
the choice of assignees was adjourned.

SECONDAKIES%-(THIS DAY.)
There were two undefended causes on bills of ex-
change, which did not possess the slightest interest.
DUTTON V. FEESMONGER.
This was an action to recover the amount of a bill of
costs. The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
The plaintiff said his principal witness was not present,
and wished that he might be called on his subpoena pre
vious to the jury being sworn in.
The Learned SECONDARY said he could not allow that
to be done. The plaintiff might withdraw the record if
he thought proper ; but if he did, the • witness could not
be called on his recognizance.
Mr. .I)uNcAN,- who appeared for the defendant, said
the plaintiff:might as well take a nonsuit at once, which
must be the case a last.—(Laugh:er.)
The :.;;EC NDARY—We must not decide that without
theTil'ilery beingplaintiff.-stVernn withdrew the record.

BOW-STREE"I7.--(THIS DAY.)
Charles Metcalfe, errand boy, and Mary Ann Russel,
servant of all work to Mr. Bodmin, tailor, of the Strand,
were charged before Mr. Jardine with stealing, at various
times, a quantity of goods from their employer's shop ;
and a woman, named Evans, was charged with receiving
t 1•, stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen.
The prisoners had been twice remanded.
The evidence given on the former hearings, though it
strongly inculpated Russel and Evans, did not much
affee; the boy Metcalfe ; 411(1 Dlr. Jardine, ou being

formed that there was no further evidence, determined
to admit him as a witness against the other prisoners.
He stated that he had been in Mr. Bodmin's service
about seven months. About two months ago, Mrs. Rus-
sel told him one day that she had no money, and asked
him where she was to get some ? lie said he could
not tell. She then told him to go up to the room of Mr.
Day, a lodger in the house, and take away
his trousers, which he did. He gave her the trousers,
and she said she would take them to Mrs. Evans. A
few days afterwards she told him to take a waistcoat
piece from the shop, take it to Mrs. Evans, and tell her
to pawn it, and she (Russel) would call for the money
in the evening. He went to Mrs. Evans (whom he had
known for about three months) and gave her the mes-
sage. In the course of the evening, he himself went
again to Mrs. Evans, and told her Mrs. Russel could not
come out. She then gave him 2s. 6d., which he gave to
Mrs. Russel. He afterwards brought, at various times,
trousers' pieces, waistcoat pieces, and another pair of
trousers of Mr. Day's, for which Mrs. Evans got various
sums from Is. to 35., which he gave to Mrs.Russehocca-
sionally receiving Is. himself. This went on until Thurs-
day, 26th November, when he was stopped by policeman
Pocock, F 14, just as he was leaving Mrs. Evans.
after giving her a trousers' piece. He told the
constable that he had left a trousers' piece with Mrs.
Evans, and on being taken back to her place pointed her
out to the officer. She said that it was sent to her by
Mrs. Russel to look at. -

Joseph Donaldson, shopman to Mr. Bassett, pawn-
broker, of Great Queen-street, produced several waist-
coat pieces, a trousers'-piece, and a pair of trousers,
which were pawned at several times in the course of
October and November, in the name of Evans.
Mr. Day identified the pair of trousers as his pro-
perty.
Several pawnbrokers' shopmen produced other waist-
coat and trouser picces, &c. Some of which were also
pawned in the name of Evans, and others in the name of
Hus Eel, the greater part of which were identified as
having been stolen from Mr. Bodman's shop.
Mr. JARDINE committed the prisoners for trial.

MARLBRO'-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
William Borne was charged with stealing several ar-
ticles this morning from the tap-room of the Yorkminster
public-house, North Audley-street.
George Johnson, landlord of the Yorkminster, said
the prisoner had a cup of coffee this morning, about half-
past eight o'clock, in the tap room, and immediately
walked out; but in consequence of what was told him,
the complainant followed him, and said he had got some-
thing of his in his pocket. The prisoner denied, but
complainant was bringing him back to the tap-room,
when the prisoner pulled out a cup and saucer from his
pocket, and begged him not to go further with it. When
he was in the tap-room, waiting the pollee coming, he
brought out five knives and four forks from his pocket,
all belonging to the complainant.
Police-constable C 70 searched him, and found a tea-
spoon on him.
Mr. HAnnwicK committed the prisoner to take his
trial at the Middlesex Sessions.
Charles Kerslake, tinplate-worker, Tudor-court, Tot-
tenham-court-road, was summoned by his apprentice for
ill using him on Wednesday last.
Henry James Newman, the apprentice, said that when
he was leaving the shop on Wednesday, at 20 minutes
after one o'clock, to go to his dinner, he was ordered by
his master to return at two. Instead of that he returned
a quarter-past two, being five minutes within the hour
allowed by his indenture. His master threatened he
would give him a caning, and laid hold of him by the
throat to pull him down stairs. After some rough usage,
in which the handkerchief of complainant was torn off
his neck, and his shirt collar damaged, two lads were
sent for a cane, the master saying he would cane every
inch of him, and when it was brought he struck him with
it severely across the back and side till the female ser-
vant came up and took the cane from him and broke it.
Several witnesses were called on both sides, who all
corroborated the statement of the complainant.
The master said the boy had disobeyed his orders, and
he gave him what he considered a thrashing. He con-
sidered he had a right to cane his apprentices ; he felt it
was his solemn duty to do so, and believed it would do
him good.
Mr. lannwrox. asked what was the age of the ap-
prentice ? The apprentice—Eighteen years.
Mr. HARDWICK said the use of personal violence to a
lad eighteen years of age was not right, and could not
be approved of on any principle; and there was no ne-
cessity for a Magistrate sitting with a power to send
apprentices to the House of Correction, if masters were
allowed the use of personal violence towards them.
The defendant's idea of his right was erroneous, and his
sense of a solemn duty was ridiculous. It was evident
the master was an irritable man, and the indenture had
better be cancelled.
The master said he could not agree to that, and would
resist it to his utmost.
Mr. HAnDwicic said the power to do so lay entirely
with the magistrate. He said the master must pay 20s.
and 2s. costs for the assault. He then informed the ap-
prentice's mother that she might have a summons
against the master to make him show cause why the in-
denture should not be cancelled, but advised her in the
meantime to consult some friend whether she ought to
proceed to that length ; but she might have the sum-
mons at any time.