The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-10 00:00:00

COURT OF REVIEW, Dec. 9.

POLLARD V. TAYLOR.
This was the petition of the plaintiff, who was the
representative of the Bra Cord Banking Company, and
prayed that a fiat of bankruptcy which had been ob-
tained might be superseded.
It appeared from the statement of Mr. SWANSTON,
who appeared in support of the petition, that the liabi-
lities of the defendant exceeded 1,5001., of which his
elient's debt amounted to more than half, and the de-
fendant had made a deed of settlement prior to his
obtaining the fiat in bankruptcy, in last September,
which, it was contended, precluded him from receiving
the benefit of the act of the Court.
O.i the part of the defendant., it was alleged that the
trustees to the settlement had not discharged their duties,
and that some of his creditors refused to accede to that
deed of settlement, so that he had no means of protect-
ing himself from utter ruin but by adopting the course
he had taken.
At the conclusion of the arguments,
Sir J. li. BRUCE said he would not state what course he
should have deemed it his duty to pursue in this case
had he been satisfied that the fiat was issued wholly for
improper purposes. He was satisfied, however, that the
fiat had not been issued for the benefit of the creditors,
nor yet with a view to the bankrupt's own legitimate
interest. Whatever might be expected to be the suc-
cess of such a measnre as that of the bankrupt's, it was
clearly established by the evidence that the effect of it
had been either effectually to prevent or materially ob-
struct the execution of the trusts. It was of no im-
portance whatever whether or not the trustees
had in all cases executed their duty diligently, as far as
related to the case in its present stage. It was certainly
competent for the bankrupt, if there were such mis-
management as would justify the course, to make an
application to the Court to be protected from the effects
of such. In his whole experience he was never aware
or a case, to the best of his recollection, where it was
more the duty of the Court to nullify a fiat, which he
would accordingly do, with costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 9.
PLINISIER V. ANDERSON.
Mr. Sergeant Jones and Mr. Udale were for the plain-
tiff; and Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Wordsworth for the
defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. John
Piimmer, the proprietor of the Anchor Brewery, Chel-
sea, to recover 40/. 13s. 7d. from the defendant, Mr. J.
T. Anderson, • who occupies a beer-shop called the
" Royal Oak," in Dervill-street, Bethnal•green, of which
the plaintiff is the tenant. The defendant entered into
the premises in question in the month of March,
843, he agreeing to pay a rent of 221.
er annum, and that the plaintiff should supply
him with beer and ale. Various payments were made
on account of the commodities supplied, but on balanc-
ing the accounts in May last, the sum for which the
action was brought was found due, and which the de-
ft.ndvnt refused to pay, pleading that he never was it -
debtud.

Evidence was adduced to show the delivery of va-
rious quantities of ale and beer; that the running ac-
count between the parties, on being balanced in May,
showed the above-mentioned balance in favour of the
plaintiff, who allowed the defendant 51. per cent, discount
on all sums paid by him.
The defence was that the plaintiff was really indebted to
the defendant for money expended, and for time and
trouble in endeavouring to obtain a spirit license for ano-
ther house belonging to the plaintiff; for which he claimed
upwards of 501.; that he was simply placed in the house
in question to sell beer and ale for the plaintiff, at a
commission of 10s. per barrel, and Si. per cent. discount;
and that he paid the rent to the owner of the house for
the plaintiff.
Evidence was adduced on the part of the defendant to
show that such an arrangement had been made.
The plaintiff's son, however, was called, and proved
that the defendant was allowed 101. for his expenses;
that no arrangement was made to pay 10s. per barrel;
that lie was his father's tenant, and that if he obtained
the spirit license, which he did not, he was either to give
the plaintiff a promissory- note for 1,200/, the value of
the other house, the Victoria, or to have 100/. for his
trouble.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed,
WOODS AND FIELD V. THOMS AND ANOTHER.
This was on a bill of exchange for 272/ Is. incurred
for hops supplied to the defendants by the plaintiffs, who
are hop merchants in Mark-lane. The defendants are
brewers at HungeriEbrd, in Wiltshire.
Mr. Joseph Rayner, the plaintiff's traveller, proved
the hand writing of Matthews, one of the defendants.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.
COLT-

_RTGIOLLF
VE.XLOCRbIIEcyRUzOENR., Dec. 9.
The LORD CHIEF BARON intimated, that in consequence
of the order obtained during the progress of the
action, from Lord Langdale, by the application of the
defendant for the purpcse of taxing the bill of costs of
the plaintiff in the present action, he was not quite
certain but that the wit,,le of the proceedings which bad
alread3 been taken in this court should have been dis-
pensed with. It was his opinion that the interpretation
to be given to the order of Lord Langdale was that the
question of liability s iould first be tried, and if decided
against the defendant, then the amount of the verdict
to be regulated according to the taxation.
After a short disci's:4ton, it was arranged that the
matter should be reforred to Mr. Willis, with
power to
call to his assistance thin services of one of the officers of
the taxing master.

GREACIITY V. BARNARD.
This was an action --4) recover a balance alleged to be
due from the defendairt for professional, travelling, and
hotel charge:, connect ed with
a survey of three miles
and tLree-quarters of the Sbuth Midlands and South-
ampton Junction Ilai!rivay, of which defendant was en-
gineer.
It appeared that the. :plaintiff had been engaged to com-
plete the survey at the; rate of 25/. per mile, but that
when surveying some la nd, the property of the Duke of
Buckingham they were ordered WI by his Grace. They,
however, were convic'zef . of trespass, and placed in " du-
rance vile" by some of 6 cers of the law. A representa-
tion of these circumstar .ces was made by the plaintiff to
the defendant, who 4)4 rmed him that the survey must