The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-11 00:00:00

company, and the attendance of a large number of wit-
Lewes was necessary to prove his case.—Rule granted.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. BAILEY.

In this case, which was tried last term before the I
Lord Chief Baron, verdicts were returned for the Crown
upon the first, fourth, and fifth counts of the declaration.
The first count charged tl-e plaintiff with being in pos-
session of four illicit stills; upon this count a verdict
was found with the sum of 2,0001. The fourth count
charged the defendant with distilling spirits without a
license ; upon this count a verdict was returned with
the sum of 5001. The fifth count charged the
defendant with removing spirits without a permit;
the verdict upon this count was also for the Crown,
with the sum of 4,0001. The defendant carried on the
business of a wholesale chemist and druggist at Red-
burn, in Derbyshire.
Mr. MARTIN now moved for a rule either to set aside
the verdict, or for a new trial. Although it had been
proved by the witnesses called at the trial upon the part
of the Crown that these stills had been improperly
used, yet these stills were primarily intended for the
purpose of distilling sweet spirits of nitre, and as this
article was exempted from the operation of 6 George IV.,
the defendant was not bound to take out a license, and
therefore the verdict returned upon the two last counts
was wrong. If the party owning stills kept for the pur-
pose of distilling such spirits of nitre should use his still
for the purpose of manufacturing spiriti properly su
called, there were other Acts under which he could be
punished, but under the 6 Geo. IV. it was now con-
tended that the defendant could not be convicted.
The COURT held the verdict to be good, and consi-
dered that the defendant came under the definition of
the Act.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 10.
(Sittings in Banco.)
CAREY P. SMALLWOOD.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL showed cause against a rule
obtained by Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, on the 9th June last,
for a stet processus as plaintiff, the defendant to give
security for costs. The rule was obtained by the plain-
tiff on a single affidavit, alleging that the defendant was
either in a state of insolvency, or that he was residing
abroad. The action was directed to be brought by the
Court of Chancery, to which the plaintiff had applied for
an injunction to restrain defendant from infringing a
patent for wood pavement. The defendant denied
that the plaintiff's system of wood pavement
was a new invention, but one similar to that
previously brought out by Mr. Macarthur. The
injunction was obtained from Vice-Chancellor Wigram.
on an ex parte application. The defendant shortly
afterwards succeeded in procuring a dissolution of the
injunction, the Vice-Chancellor reserving the question
of costs, the defendant being directed to keep an account,
and the plaintiff to proceed by action at law, and this
action was accordingly brought. The affidavits filed by
defendant denied the allegations contained in the plain-
tiffs affidavits, and it was contended that the application
arose from an unwillingness on the part of plaintiff to go
to trial.

Mr. Sergeant GLOVER followed on the same side.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD replied in support of the rule.
The COURT was of opinion that there was no ground
whatever for interference. The rule 'must therefore be
discharged with costs.—Rule discharged accordingly.
REGISTRATION APPEAL FROM THE BOROUGR OF DART-
MOUTH.

Mr. Sergeant DOWLING applied to the Court to en-
large the period for entering an appeal against a decision
of the revising barrister for the borough of Dartmoutb.
He made it under the 64th se:tion of the Reform Act,
which gave the Court power to extend the time
of entry. It was required that the notice of the
appeal should be forwarded to the Court so as
to be entered on the 4th day of November.
It seemed that the attorney bad ❑ot taken the necessary
steps for forwarding the appeal till the evening before
the last day, when requiring the presence of his client
to complete the application, he was disappointed by his
absence from home. A day, therefore, was lost, and
ber re affi davits of the cause of delay could be made,
and the necessary steps taken for the present application,
the present week had arrived.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, after consulting the Act,
was of opinion that the Court ought not to interfere.
The Act gave them the power of extending the period of
entry, providing that a reasonable time had not bean
given for preparing the appeal, but here there had been
plenty of time. The delay had been occasioned by the
neglect of the attorney. The application must, there-
fore be refused.
The rest of their Lordships concurred.
ROBINSON V. BROWN.

This was a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground of
the improper admission of evidence. It was an action
to recover 4001. secured on a bond, and the verdict had
been returned for the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not
served the defendant with notice to produce the written
notice with which ho had been served of breach of bond,
and at the trial evidence as to the substitution of a letter
was given, without the letter itself being produced.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Butt showed cause
against the rule, and Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Burns
supported it.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, the question at issue
was, whether proper notice of default had been given to
the defendant ? He was of opinion that there had not,
as the defendant should not only have given notice of
the default, but have called on him to produce the same
on trial. His opinion, thererore, was, tho evidence was
insufficient to go to the jury. He did not think the prac-
tice of notice regarding bills of exchange admissible
in the present case. Failing in that, he con-
sidered the rule for a rionsuit should be made
absolute. But that the ends of justice might be served,
the Court perhaps would be ah!e to frame the rule,
though leave on that head had not been given, so as
to enter a verdict, and then the question might h,
relied whether the production of the paper was material
or not in the case.
The other Learned Judges concurred, and the rule
was made absolute.
COURT OF BAAKIWPTCY, Nov. 10.
(Before Commissioner GOULBURN.)
IN RE PEASE PEASE AND THOMPSON.

The bankrupts, William Henry Pease and John
Pease came up to pass their last examination. They
have carried on business with Thompson (who had not
surrender( d), as wine merchants, in Ingram-court, Fen-
church-street, and Lime-street.
The balance-skeet showed debts amounting to 1,487/.
Good debts, 2411. I Is. ; doubtful, 416/. ; property,
:375/. ss. ; deficiency by Thompson, who has ab-
sconded, 3IIZ
Mr. Cooke appeared to oppose.
An examination took place as to the transaction with
Thompson, when it appeared that besides being a
partner in the firm, he was age -It for Johnston and
Co., wine-merchants, and had absconded, being a
defaulter for upwards of 4001., all of which he had gam-
bled away, except about 1501., which he had lent to his
brother. Thompson had been committed to prison in
consequence. The bankrupt (Win. Henry Pease) ad-
mitted that he had speculated in railway shares and lost
by them.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that was de irly
gambling, but it was a matter to be taken into consi
deration when the bankrupt came up fir his certificate.
The Learned Commissioner said that the accounts ap-
peared sufficient.
The bankrupt then passed the examination.
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
IN RE THE LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM EXTENSION
RAILWAY TO LEAYINGTON.
His HONOUR had appointed twelve o'clock to-day to
give his decision as to whether the insertion of a notice
of dissolution in the London Gazette was an act of
bankruptcy, and at that hour the solicitor to the fiat was
in attendance.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that the pint was
of such great importance that he wished for further
time to consider, but perhaps the solicitor would wish to
argue the point.
The SOLICITOR said that he was prepared to do so.
The Learned COMMISSIONER asked whether he wished
for time, or to employ counsel?
The Summon said he was ready to argue the case
himself at any time appointed, and two o'clock to-day
was fixed.

At two o'clock to-day this matter was called on by
appointment for the question to be argued whether a
notice of dissolution of the company in the London Ga-
zette was in itself an act of bankruptcy.
Mr. Pocock appeared as solicitor to the fiat.
The Learned COMMISSIONER asked whether any per-
son appeared on the other side to oppose the adjudica-
tion ?
Mr. PococK said he was not aware that any opposi-
tion would be made. He then proceeded to argue that
under the 27th and 28th sections of the Act 9th.and lOtti
Vie., c. 28, any creditor was at liberty to sue Out a fiat
after notice of dissolution was given in the Gazette,
whether the company had decided that the dissolution
was to be considered an act of bankruptcy or not, if
such fiat was sued out within three months from the
time such notice was given, and that the dissolution
of the company was in itself an act of bankruptcy, for no
further proceedings could be taken to carry out the ob-
ject for which it was formed.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said ho was of opinion
that it was so, but the Act was by no means clear, and
he should not decide without consulting his brother
Commissioner. lie would take down the argument and
consider the matter.
Mr. POCOCK said that he had also to submit that the
shutting up the office and ending trade was an act of
bankruptcy under the general law.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that if the bank-
ruptcy could not be sustained under this Act it could not
be made out at all. The company were not traders.
Mr. Pococx said that if the creditors could not come
in under this Act they had no remedy against the share-
holders, for the managers had almost all a.b,conded, and
it was only by ascertaining the debts under the bank-
ruptcy that they could go before the Lord Chancellor to
have a distribution from the shareholders.
Mr. P, cock said Mr. Commissioner Goulburn had
expressed a very strong opinion as to the validity of the
Proceedings.
The Learned COMMISSIONER then adjourned the case
till Friday next.

MIDDLESEX SESSLON S.
(Before the Asstirrawr-Jumac and a full Bench of
The November
Magistrates.)
general sessions commenced yester-
day, at the Court-house, Clerkenwell-green, whe the
calendar, although such a short time had elapsed lace
the last sitting of the Court, presented the unusual Luna-
'Mr of 89 prisoners, of which 12 were misdemeanants,
the remainder being charged with felony.
The Learned A SSISTANT. JUDGE having addressed the
grand jury at some length, they retired to discharge
their duties.

James Hyatt, an agricultural labourer, was charged
with stealing a turkey, the property of Mr. George
Lambert, a tarmcsr, residing at Enfield-chase.
The prisoner had been in the prosecutor's employment