The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-28 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 27.
WEEKS V. ARGENT.

This was an action to recover 1201. on a promissory
note.

The defendant was formerly the proprietor of the Rain-
bow Tavern, Fleet-street. A person of the name of
Clarke was waiter at the tavern. During the time of
his living with the defendant money transactions took
place between them to the extent of three or four then-
sand pounds. In the course of these transactions,
defendant gave the plaintiff an acceptance for two
hundred pounds, which was dishonoured, and on which
judgment was obtained. In the mean time the defen-
dant became bankrupt. Upon the morning of his final
examination, the solicitor to Clarke waited upon and in-
formed defendant, that unless some arrangement was
come to with reference to his claim he would oppose the
granting of his certificate. In consequence of this
threat, two promissory notes of 1201. each were handed
over by the defendant to Clarke or his agent. Of these
notes one was at twelve months, the other at twenty •
four. It was upon the first of these that the present
action was brought. By an Act passed during the pre-
sent reign it was enacted, that it any bankrupt should
give any promissory note or other security to prevent
any creditor from opposing his final examination or ob-
taining his certificate, such notes or security were to be
considered as null and void. It was under the provisions
of this Act that the defendant set up the plea to the
present action.
Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS, having stated the above
facts, proceeded to call witnesses in support thereof.
Mr. CHARNOCK then called Mr. Valiance, the attor-
ney of Clarke, who conducted the arrangement above
referred to, and in the course of his examination asked
him several questions, which he objected to answer un-
less desired to do so by the Learned Baron, on the
ground of the communications that he had with the
parties being privileged.
Mr. HUMPHREY contended that the witness could not
be compelled to divulge any circumstances connected
with those transactions. _ _

The LORD CHIEF BARON ruled that the witness should
answer the questions.
A note was taken of the objection, and the witness
proceeded to give evidence corroborative of the state-
ment above made.

The proceedings in the Court of Bankruptcy were
then put in to prove the bankruptcy of the defendant.
This evidence was considered not sufficient by the
Lord Chief Baron, and a verdict was accordingly re-
turned for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.
Leave was given to the defendant to move to enter
the verdict for the defendant if the proceedings were
considered by the Court sufficient ; and leave was given
to the plaintiff, in case such proceedings were considered
sufficient, to move for a new trial, on the ground of the
inadmissibility of the evidence of Mr. Valiance.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
OLD COURT.

Thomas Henry Langford, an egg dealer, aged 34, was
indicted for the manslaughter of Thomas Roberts, by
running over him with a cart, between Greenwich and
Woolwich.

Mr. Ballantine was retained for the prosecution, and
Mr. Doane defended the prisoner.
The prisoner, it appeared, in the course of his business,
was driving between the two towns mentioned at a fu-
rious rate, on the 9th of the present month, and the
principal difficulty in the case arose from the inability
of the witnesses to identify him. The horse and the
cart said to have occasioned the accident were in the
yard of the Court, and several witnesses appeared to
identify a pad and basket which were found on the road
after it. This closed the evidence on tho part of the
prosecution.
Mr. DOANE, in addressing the jury, said the question
was not one respecting the accident itself, but upon the
fact whether that accident was caused by the prisoner at
the bar. It appeared that a number of persons bad
assembled at the Antigallican Tavern, to celebrate
the birthday of Mr. Wheatley, the landlord. After
the entertainment the party had broken up, and in a
condition which would at least make them careless
of any consequences, and certainly might subject them
to danger in the event of any vehicle being driven
rapidly up the road. The prisoner entirely denied any
participation in the offence, though offence there cer-
tainly had been. The whola charge rested on circurn •
stancial evidence alone. To this evidence they must
turn their attention. The pad produced was one for
herrings ; and it was shown that a person of the name
of Parr got into the prisoner's cart between eight and
nine in the evening ; and as this person was a customer
of Langford's, it was most probable that he would have
ascertained what the cart contained. Now it was per-
fectly clear that there were no herring pads in the cart
at that time. This was a most important fact, for it was
stated in the evidence that several persons were passing
down the road every day for the sale of herrings and
eggs. The next important point was the time at which
it was alleged he was returning to town. It was plainly
put in evidence that he was seen on his road driving his
own horse, about nine in the evening, about three miles
from the place where the accident happened, that cir-
cumstance having happened certainly after eleven, if not
at nearly twelve at night. He contended that there was
no case whatever made out against the prisoner.
The following witnesses were then examined :
Mr. Frederick Pearse, an egg dealer at Deptford, who
had sold the horse to the prisoner, stated that he had
often tried to get the horse into a gallop, and had great
difficulty even in making it trot. He did not believe that
the animal could go ten miles an hour; certainly he had
never seen it gallop more than ten yards at a time.
Mr. Farrance, who kept a house in Worcester-street,
in the Borough, deposed to the prisoner arriving about
twelve o'clock in the night of the 9th of November.

Thomas Parker, an—ostler at the Lord Howick, at
Woolwich, deposed to having given the prisoner's horse
some hay about nine o'clock on the night in question.
William James, an engineer, had frequently driven
and ridden with the prisoner. He could not believe that
the horse could be able to go so much as ten miles an
hour. He had never been able to get him into a gallop,
although he had frequently tried to do so.
After hearing some further evidence, the jury re-
turned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prisoner was
immediately discharged.