The Sun.
London, England, 1848-10-19 00:00:00

FATAL RAILWAY ACCIDENT.

BLISWORTH, OCT. 16.—An inquest was held this
morning at the Railway Hotel, Blisworth, before
Mr. Hick, one of the coroners for the county of
Northampton, on view of the body of Richard
James.

Mr. Bedford attended to watch the proceedings on
the part of the company.
The deceased was a porter in the employ of the com-
pany, and at the time the accident happened he, with
three other porters, named Mellish, Goodman, and
Leper, had been turning a carriage-truck on to a
siding, after which deceased proceeded to cross the
line, on the London side, at the time the five r.u.
train was coming in. The driver and fireman
were keeping a good look out, but the police-
man's hut and the signal-post intervening, they
could not see the deceased in sufficient time
to avoid coming in contact with him, and
the consequence was that the off buffer struck
the deceased on the hip, and drove him about six.-
teen yards, throwing him across the rails, when one
of the waggons caught his foot, and dragged de-
ceased under the other waggons, separating his right
foot, and severing his head from his body, besides
otherwise mangling him in a frightful manner.
The deceased was about twenty-six years of age,
and he had been at the station only about five
weeks. Ills mother and sisters and a brother
were standing on the platform at the time, having
come to visit the unfortunate man, and thus
witnessed the accident. The obstruction caused
no fewer than nine waggons and the tender
to be thrown off the line, blocking it up to such an
extent that it was not cleared till after ten o'clock,
whilst deceased was so dreadfully mangled that his
remains were not cleared from the waggons
and road for nearly an hour and a quarter.
This is the first fatal accident that has
occurred at this station since the opening
of the line, and the jury were of opinion that
the present might have been avoided had signals been
given by the driver. Mr. Bedtord stated that such
was the regulation of the company, the engine-drivers
being instructed to sound the whistle a quarter of
a mile before entering a station, but, unfortunately
it was a common practice amongst many of the
porters, &c., to disregard this, and thus the majority
of the accidents that occurred were caused, not by
the engine-drivers neglecting their duties, but by the
carelessness or recklessness of the servants employed
on the lines.
The jury, after a lengthened consultation, returned
a verdict that deceased came to his death by accident;
but, at the same time they thought that more caution
ought to be used by the drivers in approaching to or
passing. by a station, particularly one of such an extent
as that at Blisworth.

EXTRAORDINARY FEATS.—The Fife Herald nar-
rates the antics of a steeple and chimney climber on the
top of a chimney stalk at Newton of Abbotshall, 136
feet high. Ile fixed n plank te❑ inches broad, and
projecting about twelve feet on each side, on the
top of the chimney. In the centre of this plank
he placed a pole sixteen feet high, having a
small piece of wood on the top. which he climbed up
and stood upright on, holding a flag in his hand. After
doing so, he descended to the top of the stalk, when he
walked out to each end of the plank, and struck an axe
into them. He then turned about towards the centre,
and, to the great alarm of the assembled multitude, stood
on his head tor some time, and, returning to his feet, he
stamped firmly upon the plank on each side of the chim-
ney. He then safely descended head foremost.
LORD GEORGE BENTlNCX.—Yesterday, at a meet-
ing of the Liverpool Constitutional Association, an ad-
dress of condolence to the Duke of Poltlacd, on the
death of Lord George Bentinck, was unanimously
adopted.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Oct. Is.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE RIMLESS, SKERRATT, AND CO.

These bankrupts, who were woollendrapers, carry-
ing on business in St. Martin's-lane, applied for their
certificates. The balance-sheet embraced a period of
about four years, and showed that the debts were
5,5001., and to meet which the assets were stated at
about 2,7001. The profits were 6,4981., and the trade
expenses 1,1891., private 1,9871, housekeeping 8571.,
and losses 2,2941.
Mr. Linklater, for the assignees, opposed, and Mr.
Lawrence supported the bankrupt.
The grounds of opposition were, first, that the
bankrupts commenced trade without capital, and were
now involved to the extent of 8,0001., having only
1,300/. to meet it ; secondly, that in September,
1847, when they compounded with their creditors,
they gave a fraudulent preference to certain persons
who were debtors to their estate ; and, thirdly, that
they (the bankrupts) obtained from Messrs. Wise
goods under the false pretence that they should be
paid for at the time.
Mr. LINKLATEa then proceeded to detail the facts
of the case in corrohation of the allegations made to
the bankrupts' application for their certificates, show-
ing that they had actually lost 6,0001. in less than four
years, and concluded by submitting that gentlemen,
who left their situations to embark in trade without
capital, living on their creditors, and then corning to
this Court with a large deficiency, should not be
allowed to re-enter trade without censure from the
Court; and with regard to living on their creditors,
they had paid a large amount of interest for the loans
of money to enable them to go on. In September
they called their creditors together, then knowing
they were in a state of insolvency ; they went to Mr.
Taylor, a tailor, who had accepted a hill for them, but
was largely indebted to the bankrupts, who told him
that he had better come down to their premises, and
fetch a sufficient quantity of goods to meet the bill,
which Mr. Taylor did, and now the bill (for 1801.)
was unpaid to the extent of 701. There was a similar
tran'action also with a Mr. Absalern.

Mr. Dawson (the agent of Mr. Wise) was exa-
mined by Mr. Linklater, and said that his employers
were creditors in September to the extent of 4001.,
and consented to accept the composition of 14s. in
the pound, only one-fourth of which had been paid.
In January, 1847, Mr. Skerratt applied to be allowed
to re-open the account with Mr. Wise, who refused
so to do, but.upon a subsequent application they ob-
tained some goods, on the understanding that it
should be a ready money transaction. They had not
been paid for.
After some discussion,

Mr. LAWRANCR was heard in a lengthened and able
address to the Court on behalf of the bankrupts, con-
tending that it had not been their intention at any
one period of time to depart from the rules of fair
and honest trading, and that they were now entitled
to their certificates, more particularly as they had
been out of trade for upwards of six months since the
fiat was issued.

Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQITD, in giving judg-
ment, said that he did not consider the bankrupts had
been guilty of reckless trading ; but they certainly
had conducted their trade in a very irregular way. It
was an every-day practice to begin without capital,
and therefore the Learned Commissioner did not at •
tach much weight to that point; but yet, when men
did commence business without capital, they should
conduct that business within moderate compass and
with great care. With respect to the bankrupt Bous-
field, his Honour would at once grant him his certifi-
cate. Then, as to the transactions between the other
two bankrupts and Taylor and Absalem, the latter
had paid the bill, and therefore there was an end to
the question ; but as to the former, the Court felt
bound to designate it as an irregular transaction,
and not a fraudulent preference—yet they deserved
Lying strongly censured. Then there came,
incidently, a number of preferences, by some
composition creditors getting a preference over
others. Without going into the question of the
policy or impolicy of compositions, it might be said
that when creditors were allowed to make conditions
for themselves to the disadvantage of other creditors,
it would be deemed a fraudulent preference, and
always considered most irregular, most improper, and
fraudulent conduct on the part of the bankrupt or
bankrupts. Next, as to the transaction with the
agent of Messrs. Wise, the Court did not think that
any false pretence was intended by the bankrupt
Skerratt, although it had no doubt but that Mr.
Dawson considered it to be a ready-money transac-
tion. It was not likely that Mr. Skerratt would
bla►t his future hopes in trade by committing such a
paltry fraud ; but it was probably an irregular
transaction. Mr. Skerratt appeared to have been the
active man, and there was no specific objection urged
against Mr. Regless. Therefore, taking all the cir-
cumstances of the case into consideration, the judg-
ment of the Court was, that the certificate of Regless
be suspended for three and that of Skerratt for six
months.

Mr. Liwitkisca—Will your Honour grant pro-
tection ?
llis Hosouit—Yes.
Suspended accordingly.
IN BE W. CLONES.

The bankrupt, a pawnbroker of I3rydges•street,
Covent garden, applied for his certificate.
llis lloNotia said that the report of the official as-
signee was very favourable, and granted the applica-
tion forthwith.

IN RR PEACU.

The bankrupt, a discount broker, came up to pass
his last examination.

The solicitor to the assignees applied that the case
he adjourned in order to examine Messrs. Bailey and
Co., the bankers at Monmouth, with whom the bank-
rupt had had large transactions.
His Horiouu granted the application.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, Oct 18.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
GHISLIN V. DBEN.

This action, which was reported a few days back
under the head of the " Sheriffs' Court," came before
Mr. Justice Williams, on Tuesday afternoon, on a
question of some importance to tradesmen. The
plaintiff, as proprietor of the Satirist newspaper, sued
the defendant, a tailor, in Oxford-street, for Cl. is.
for advertisements. It was complained that the ac-
tion should have been brought in one of the superior
courts, where the costs would considerably exceed
the debt, and a summons was taken out to deprive
the plaintiff of his costs. The parties attended before
Mr. Justice Williams, and it was urged that if such an
action was allowed, the County Courts Act would be
a nugatory enactment.
On the other side it was contended that the publi-
cation was printed in the City, although published
within the district of the Westminster County Court,
and therefore the County Court Act could not apply.
The Learned JUDGE ordered the debt (6/..55.) to
be paid within five days, and stayed all further pro-
ceedings until next term.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

William Treirbridge was brought up for final ex-
amination upon the charge of having stolen a port-
manteau containing paletets, vesting:, and other goods,
the property of Messrs. Nicoll, drapers and tailors in
the City, on the Eastern Counties Railroad.
Mr. Cross, traveller to the prosecutors, returned
from Ipswich to London on the 30th of September.
Having deposited the portmanteau in the van train,
at the former place, upon his arrival at the Shoreditch
terminus he looked for the portmanteau, but it was
not to be found. Haydon, Story, and Webb, of the
City police, were immediately employed to investigate
the robbery, and they ascertained in their own pecu-
liar way, that the prisoner, who had been frequently
observed on the platform at the Shoreditch terminus,
had recentiy sold pieces of goods answering the de-
scription of the stolen property, in different parts of
the town, at prices far below their wholesale value.
They also learned that he had, upon finding that in-
quiry was made after him, suddenly abandoned his
old lodging, and taken up his quarters at a public-
house at a great distance, and they succeeded in
getting possession of several of the articles, which he
had disposed of upon the terms described, and which
proved to be part of the goods of which Mr. Cross had
been robbed.
The persons to whom the prisoners had sold the
articles believed to be the property of Messrs. Nicoll,
proved that he had called upon them soon after the
day on which the robbery had been committed, and
offered it for sale, and that he had also offered to their
choice some coats with pockets of an entirely new
construction, the invention of the firm, which, how-
ever, they did not make.
These witnesses, who were closely questioned by
the prisoner, stated, in answer to him, that they had
known him as a dealer in cloth for some time, and
bad been customers to him.
Kinnerley, an Eastern Counties officer, stated that
he had often seen the prisoner on the platform of the
terminus when trains were coming in and going out,
but never had seen him go into a carriage. lie re-
collected having observed the prisoner on the platform
about the time the robbery was committed.
Story (City police), upon apprehending the pri-
soner, told him for what offence, and the prisoner,
who had mentioned to the customers alluded to that
the clothes had been brought over from Boulogne and
seized, and sold to him at a Custom-house sale, stated
that a man had given him the coats to dispose of, and
he had purchased the vestings in Petticoat-lane. The
witness had seen the prisoner at Guildhall Police-court
six month& ago upon a charge of felony, but the bill
against him had been ignored.
The prisoner, who showed complete self-possession
during the examination, remarked to the Lord Mayor,
that the evidence as to the identity of the articles
was by no means conclusive, and that no portman-
teau at all was produced, although he was dis-

tinctly charged with having stolen that as well as
the clothes.

The LORD MAYOR—Do you wish to say any
more ? The prisoner—Why, no, my Lord.
I see you are determined to send me for trial, and
so there can be no use arguing.—Committed for
trial.

Isidore Lipman, a German Jew, was brought up
on a charge of having forged the acceptance to a bill
of exchange for 101. The case was an odd one.
Solomon Marks, a tradesman in the City, had a
dealing with a person named Kracow, who paid him
with a bill purporting to be the acceptance of Julius
Lipman, the brother of the prisoner. When the bill
became due Mr. Marks presented it at No. 82, Mark-
lane, the offices of Mr. Julius Lipman, where it was
made payable. He there saw the prisoner, who in
the course of conversation told him that there were
no orders left for the payment of the bill, and that the
acceptance was written by him (the prisoner) and
not by his brother Julius. Mr. Marks stated that he
afterwards had an interview with Julius Lipman, who
positively asserted that he had not authorised his
brother to sign his name to the bill ; that he believed
the signature was in the handwriting of his brother,
who of course must be responsible for the act. The
witness further stated, that several persons were pre-
sent when Julius Lipman denied that he had autho-
rised the prisoner to accept the bill in his name.
The Solicitor for the prisoner said that Mr. Julius
Lipman was in the neighbourhood, ready to come
forward to prove that he had authorised the prisoner
to accept the bill.—(Laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR—Then Julius Lipman had bet-
ter pay the bill at once to Mr. Marks, as the bill was
his if his brother was authorised by him.
After some time Julius Lipman made his appear-
ance, and was examined.—He said he bad given his
brother Isidore authority to sign bills in his absence.
He did not specially authorise the prisoner to accept
the bill in question ; but the bill was included in the
general authorisation. He did not tell Marks that he
had not authorised the prisoner to sign the acceptance.
All he had said was, that "the bill had been accepted
without his knowledge.
Marks solemnly repeated his statement.
The LORD MATOR—I cannot detain the prisoner
after the statement made upon oath by his brother.
You may prosecute the brother, if you choose, for
perjury.
GUILDHALL.

Mr. John Norman, of Castle-court, Budge-row, was
summoned before Alderman Gibbs for refusing to pay
the fare for riding in the complainant's omnibus.
It appeared from the evidence of William Edwards
that the defendant got into his omnibus at Red Lion-
street, Holborn, and rode as far as Queen-street,
Cheapside, and on alighting tendered 3d. He was
at once told that the fare was 6d., but Mr. Norman
refused to pay it, in consequence of which he took out
the present summons.
Alderman GIBBS asked if the proper table of fares
was painted inside the omnibus according to law.
Edwards replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Norman, jun., attended instead of his father,
and said that his parent did not intend to dispute the
amount, and admitted that he was wrong in not look-
ing at the fares inside, he having only taken the one
outside as the proper one, and it was purely on public
grounds that he refused payment, knowing that there
were a number of omnibuses who on their journey
frequently changed their plates, and it was to prevent
further imposition that he allowed himself to be sum-
moned, so as to place omnibus travellers on their
guard for the future.
Alderman GIBBS said that as the fare was not dis-
puted, his decision was that he (the defendant) should
pay the 3d. in dispute, allow the man 4s. for loss of
time, also paying two shillings expenses, and be fined
one shilling, making a total of 7s. 3d.
It was immediately paid.
Mr. Rowell, the proprietor of an Alton ale house,
in Cheapside, was also summoned by the same
omnibus owner for refusing to pay his fare under
similar circumstances : _ _

It appeared that he got on the outside of the
omnibus, in Cheapside, for the purpose of going to-
wards the west-end, and on arriving at Chancery-
lane he tendered 3d., but the conductor demanded 83.
He refused to pay it, as he thought he was being im-
posed upon, and also as he did not see any list of fares
outside.

Alderman Canss—But did you look? Defendant
...I can't say that I did.
Alderman GIBBS asked the conductor whether he
had his fares painted up according to the Act of Parlia-
ment ? James Dempsey replied that they were, both
inside and out. The omnibus was one running to
the Great Western Railway, aid he dare not take
less than sixpence for any one, as the Railway Com-
pany would not allow his master, under any circum-
stances, to run for threepence, thinking that if such
were the case the omnibuses would be so crowded
as not to afford accommodation to railway passengers.
It was not the wish of his employer to attempt to
cheat any one, which was evident from the fact of the
fares being so painted that passengers both inside and
out could inspect them.
Mr. Rowell said that it was to prevent other per-
sons being imposed upon that he permitted this step
to be taken, but he could not help saying it was the
duty of the conductor to show him the list of fares.
Alderman GIBBS thought not. It was defendant's
duty to look ; and if the fares were not painted up,
then summon the proprietor, who would be heavily
fined. Under the circumstances, he must order him
to pay the fare, expenses, loss of time, and fine, the
same as the last.

Mr. Rowell at once paid the 78. 3d.
BOW-STREET.

A young servant girl, named Ann Keen, was
charged with stealing a gold watch and chain, the
property of the Rev. W. 11. Payne, a clergyman, of
Much \Venlock, residing in lodgings at 14, Surrey-
street, Strand.
The prosecutor deposed to having missed the pro-
perty on Sunday morning, the 16th of July last.
Mrs. Low, the lodging-house keeper, proved that
the prisoner was in her service at the time, and waited
upon the lodgers.
A police-officer deposed to having found the watch
in her possession at a house in Neville'srcourt,
Fetter-lane, the prisoner having previously taken it
to a watchmaker, named Barrett, to be repaired.
Some of the other lodgers in the house, who had
missed articles of wearing apparel and other pro-
perty, at various times, were also in attendance. A
victorine, worth 31, which had been found on the
prisoner, was identified by Miss Evans, a lodger, as
the property of her mother.
The prisoner entered into a long statement of an
extraordinary character.

It is proper to add that the case was partly heard
before the same magistrate one day last week, but the
prisoner made no such statement then.
The Rev. Mr. Payne remarked that there was a
gold chain attached to the watch, but no trace of it
had been discovered.

Mr. JARDINE ordered the prisoner to be committed
for trial.

Edward Cullingford, a respectable-looking young
man, was charged with forging two bills of exchange,
and thereby defrauding Mr. Swinford, of the Strand,
of 201. and 281. 10s. respectively.
Mr. Swinford stated that he was a lithographic
printer, living at 272, Strand, and that the prisoner
had been occasionally in his service as a writer. The
first bill was cashed by him to oblige the prisoner a
few months back, at a discount of 31., and witness
cashed the other for him, on his representing that his
furniture was likely to be seized for rent. He
afterwards ascertained on presenting the bills, that
the acceptance (which was in the name of Mr. C.
Manby, of George-street, Westminster), was a for-
gery.
A letter was subsequently received from the priso-
ner, at Gravesend, acknowledging that the accept-
ances were fictitious, and promising to make up the
amount at his earliest convenience.
As there appeared to be some probability of other
similar charges being brought against the prisoner,
he was remanded till Tuesday next.
CLERKELV WELL.
Edward Murney, was charged by Mr. John
Dempsey, house decorater, Polygon, Clarendon-
square, with feloniously breaking and entering his
dwelling-house, and stealing a silver watch, a quan-
tity of jewellery, and other property. The prisoner
was also charged with having violently assaulted
Mrs. Fanny Morgan, under the following circum-
stances :
Mrs. Fanny Morgan deposed that she is the wife
of Mr. George Rossiter _Morgan, and is aunt to Mr.
Dempsey, the prosecutor, and at present resides in
his house. On Tuesday evening last, about seven
o'clock, she was in the kitchen, when her attention
was attracted by a noise as if the street-door was
opened. She instantly went up stairs with a lighted
candle in her hand, and on entering the parlour
she saw the prisoner with two boxes under his arm.
She inquired his business, but he seemed agitated and
made no answer, but knocked the candle out of her
hand. She seized him by the collar, and held him
tightly whilst she called out "murder, police, rob.
bery; thieves in the house." He commenced and
continued heating her until he dragged her into the
passage in the dark, and he knocked her about dread-
fully, whilst he attempted to get to the street door to
open it; but she resisted him, and succeeded in keep.
ing him back, as she retreated with her face towards
him and her back to the door, until she opened it, and
then she called out " murder 1 robbery 11 and begged
of the neighbours to come to her assistance. The
prisoner then threw some of the property into the
street, and she kept him at bay until the police and
some of the neighbours and inmates of the house came
to her assistance, and took the prisoner into custody
after a resistance. The watch which the prisoner
threw into the street was picked up near the door.
The prisoner, who acted with the greatest indiffe-
rence during the investigation, threatened the wit-
nesses.

Mr. COMBE, after the usual caution, asked him what
he had to say to the charge ? Prisoner—l shall re-
aerve my defence for a jury.
The prisoner was then fully committed for trial.
Sarah Andrews, the wife of a compositor and shop-
keeper, Clerkenwell-close, was placed at the bar
charged with excessive cruelty to William Andrews,
a poor cripple, between fourteen and fifteen years of
age, by which he was seriously injured.
The unfortunate boy, who was supported into
court in a crippled state, was perfectly attenuated in
consequence of the ill-treatment, exhibited marks of
violence on his head, &c., and was placed on a seat
while he gave his evidence.

Mr. King, hairdresser, of 27, Clerkenwell
close, said that the defendant was the com-
plainant's mother-in-law, and for a length of time
past she had exercised the greatest cruelty towards
him, and his cries and screams frequently alarmed the
neighbours, until he (Mr. King) determined, in con-
sequence of her conduct towards the boy last Monday,
to bring her to justice, and ever since he had had the
boy under his protection, he having obtained a war-
rant against her.
The boy deposed that on Monday last the defen-
dant ordered him to wash out a room in the upper
part of the house, when she complained that he was
slow about it, and he must have been fast asleep. She
beat and kicked him on the body, side, and head.
She seized him, and he could not get away from her.
After he had finished the room she beat him, when he
escaped from under the counter. She seized him by
the arms, dragged him out, and dashed him on the
floor. she then knelt on his stomach, forced her hand
into his mouth to prevent his crying, and knelt upon
his stomach with all her might, and he now felt great
pain. She also bit his middle finger nearly through
and he bled very much. A geatleman entered the
place and took him away.
Here the poor boy was so much exhausted that his
head dropped, and he fell into a stupor.
Mr. Bayliss, the usher, said that when the applica-
tion was made for the warrant, the boy was bleeding
profusely, and he was in a weakly state.
Mr. Comae asked the boy if his mother•in-law was
in the habit of serving him in this way ? He answered
in the affirmative.

Bingham, 80 G, the warrant officer, proved the ap-
prehension of the prisoner. She said nothing.
Mr. Comm' asked her if she wished to say anything
to the charge? She said, "I did not throw him down
or kneel upon him "
She was fully committed for trial, and the boy was
taken to the workheuse.