The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-22 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 21.

COULTICAS V., TIIE REV. DR. BOWES-CRUM CON.
Their Lordships this morning, in answer to the application
of Sir Thomas Wilde on behalf of ths defendimt, granted it
rule to show cause why a new trial should not take place.
The Court was occupied the remainder of the day with the
pre. emptory paper, in which there was nothing elicited of
any interest except to the parties concerned.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, April2l.
Before Nr. Commissioner SWEPHERD.

IN RE DROMLEY.-IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL QUESTION.

To-day was appointed for a dividend in the estate of this
bankrupt, who was a solicitor in Gray's Inn, and failed to a
'very great amount.
Mr. COOKE appeared on behalf of the Metropolitan Law
Investment Society, to support a proof for about 1,400/., to
1,1001. of which there was no objection; the remaining 3001.
was for money paid to Messrs. Hoare and Co., bankers, to re-
deem deeds belonging to the Company, and deposited by the
bankrupt for money advanced.
Mr. WILDE appeared on behalf of the assignees, and ob-
jected to the proof, on the ground that the Company had no
legal or equitable claim on the estate, as they were not
bound to have paid the money, but did so for their own be-
nefit and advantage,
Mr. CoonE quoted the case exparte Young, 2 Rose, p. 40,
In which case one of the partners of a firm had signed bills
of..exchange which had been taken up, and it was afterwards
sought to prove the debt against the estate; and Lord Eldon
11.1 d. that although they were not, strictly speaking, sureties,
yet they were Persons liable, end that the most liberal in-
terpretation ought to be put on ttie words "or persons
liable," where the party was morally entitled to
protection. In this case the deeds had been de-
posited with the bankers without the knowledge
of the Company, and the bankers threatened to
sell the property, and the only resource of the
Company was to pay the money advanced. It was
quite clear that Messrs. Hoare and Co. might have proved
their debt if they had thought proper, but they did not, and
the Company stood in the place of the original creditors.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that depended on whether
there was a legal liability to pay. Did the papers get into
the hands of the bankrupt as solicitor to the Company?
Mr. COOKE answered in the affirmative.

The Learned COMUSSIONER—Then the deposit of the deeds
was fraudulent, and the Company was neither legally or
equitably bound to pay ; that fact, I think. excludes the case
entirely from Lord Eldon's opinion and judgment—morally
the proof ought to be admitted ; but the question is, can I
admit that to be a liability which was a voluntary act?
Mr. COOKE—Lord Eldon goes on to say, that in all cases
of this kind all the circumstances must be considered, and
the moral justice of the case be looked to; in the present
the estate had not been damnified, and they (the Company)
now sought to stand in the position the bankers were in at
the time of the bankruptcy.
The Learned Commtssionnit said, in the case of Young the
partners were legally liable—but no liability arose here—the
company could not have been compelled to pay the money.
Mr. COOKE said that the estate would have been sold had
the money not been paid.
The ContsussioNxn—Would not a court of equity have
interfered to have prevented a sale, or would not an action
of trover lie in a case of illegal and unjustifiable deposit?
Mr. COOKE—I can't say what a court of equity might
have done, but persons ought not to be compelled to resort
to courts of law.

The COMMISSIONER—Supposing no bankruptcy had taken
place ?
Mr. COOKE—Trover would have laid against Bromley, and
our rights against him, in my opinion, follow his estate.
The Learned COMMISSIONER asked if any cases precisely
similar could be adduced ?
Mr. Comm—lt is a novel case.
The COMMISSIONER said as to the moral justice of the case,
there could not be a doubt; but he was not prepared to de-
cide in favour of the proof.
Mr. WILDE said, that whatever the disposition of the as-
signee might be to sympathise with the claimants, they were
bound to raise the question. Here had been a criminal act
committed—an embezzlement—and bad an action of trover
been brought, the bankers could not have made any reply.
The claimants had made a sacrifice of their money for their
own benefit.

The Learned COMMISSIOXER said he could not at present
take the proof, but would consider the point.

INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S COURT, April 21.
(Before the CHIEF Commtssiormit.)
IN HE C. L. MACDONALD.
The insolvent was opposed 'by Mr. Nichols, for Peitr.
Spencer, who had been plaintiff in an action of c7rnta Court
n h
his wife, against the insolvent, whichwas t riedn
of Common Pleas by Lord Chief Justice Tindal, and in which
100/. damages were awarded.
The insolvent's liabilities wholly amounted to 1581., 140/.
of which was for damages and costs in the action of trim.
can.
The insolvent stated that he was a comedian at the
minor theatres, and declared that the wife of the opposing
creditor represented herself to be an unmarried woman.
The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER said in such cases as
these a rule of the Court was to remand insolvents according
to the amount of damages awarded by the jury. The
damages
.in this case strongly marked the animadversion of
the jury oil the insolvent's conduct. The insolvent's station
was very alluring to minds ill regulated. Taking all things
into consideration, the judgment of the Court was that the
insolvent should be discharged after having been in custody
for ten months from the vesting order.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW STREET.
Thomas Goold, one of the beadles of the parish of St.
Martin-in-the-Fields, appeared before Mr. Jardine, to answer
a summons, charging him with assaulting Mr. Foster, known
under the name of Thorne, of the Morning Post Newspaper.
Mr. Foster's case, proved by himself, and partly corrobo-
rated by several witnesses, was that, on the occasion of the
inquest on the late accident at the Hungerford-bridge pier,
he, Mr. Forster, attended for the Times newspaper. He was
not accommodated as well as he could wish by the beadle,
who told him to get out of the way, and on his refusing to do
so struck him very violently.
Goold in his defence called three witnesses, who all
said that Mr. Foster was not sober, and that he abused the
beadle, called him. various names, and asking him " How
much he was to get for packing the jury, and suppressing the
evidence ?" When Goold attempted to prevent him from
forcing his way to a place where he had no business to go,
he said he was a gentleman by birth and breeding, and he
would " show him up in the Times."
Mr. Foster said he was not intoxicated, but was only
slightly excited, in consequence of the death of a relative,
who was now under the water, and upon whom the inquiry
was held.
Mr. JARDINE thought the beadle had received a great deal
of provocation, but nothing could justify him, being a con-
stable, whose duty it was to preserve peace and order, in
assaulting the ;complainant. He would, therefore, fine him
405., or, in default, commit him for seven days.
The fine was paid.
Frederick Sampson and Edwin Ball were again placed at
the bar before Mr. Jardine, having been remanded from
Friday last, upon the charge of throwing a trussel into the
Thames from WaterlooTbridge.
Mr, JARDSKE, on the case coming on this day, said that
this was an indictable misdemeanour, and if Mr. Powell, the
solicitor to the Waterloo Bridge Company, was willing to
prosecute, be would commit the prisoners for
Mr. Powell did not wish to indict the prisoners; and after
a long discussion,
Mr. JARDINE consented to treat the case summarily, and
ordered the prisoners to pay 2/. ss. for the wilful damage to
the trussel. This was paid immediately.
(It will be observed that for endangerlng the lives of the
public the defendants get off with impunity.)

Edward Willoughby, a job-master, was charged with fu
rious driving, and running against the carriage of Lord Ran-
funky, of No. 40, Berkeley-square,
About 5 o'clock en Monday afternoon, the defendant, while
driving at a furious rate in Hyde Park, from Cumberland to
Grosvenor-gate, a one-horse four wheel carriage, in whichh,
were two ladies and two children, ran against Lord Ran-
furley's brougham, containing the three Misses Knox. The
defendant, without stopping, drove recklessly on, and on his
Lordship's page running after him to obtain his address, he
struck him violently with his whip, and knocked his hat off.
After turning from Grosvenor-gate into Park-lane, he ran
against another gentleman's carriage; his horses were then
in a furious gallop. He was stopped and taken into custody
by the police.
Mr. l'ilazinv asked if the defendant was intoxicated?—
The constable said he was very much so.
The defendant said his horse was not able to gallop at a fu-
rious rate of speed,
Mr. MALTer said it was a very bad case, and he should
therefore tine the defendant 21. for furiously driving, and 31.
for the assault on Lord Ranfurley's page.
MARYLEBONE.
Mr. Henry Cowne, a pawnbroker, carrying on business in
Salisbury-street, Portman-market, was charged on two
taeg, et,hßeapyaswwnaitrewr,
war-
rants with having committed assaults of a most violent and
e
unprovoked nature.
saionlaodfyth residing
duplicate a t MfOser thw
deposed, that some time ago her servant, unknown to her,
pledged a quantity of her stair-covering, and that she ob-
tained Mrs 'po Ross,es
having taken place at the shop of the defendant. The twelve
months had expired on the 10th instant, which was Good
Friday, and on the following morning she (complainant)
went to the house for the purpose of redeeming the p,Topert.;,;
at the same time presenting the money and ticket at the
counter, to a boy, who told her that his master was not tit
home. She waited for nearly half an hour, and was then
teld by another female that defendant was probably at his
other private dwelling, over the way. She went out, and
returith ..44c,ther person, to whotn-shatad'6oo., uni..
Aka iiiitOtad taken place, to the shop, andlelling attendant
there, tendered again the money, when he Atsitect that the
things were sold, and coltsmaeoy she could not have them,
and that if 41:0 was ctetermtued to do an 'thing more, it must
be by " 4ue course of law.' The defendant farther told her
that he would place the covering which had been pledged
upon the counter, sad that If she took it he would give her
into custody, and perhaps cause her to be transported The
property was accordingly laid upon the counter, but fearing
ulterior consequences, she refused to take possession of it, ex •
cept in the regular way; by the payment of the proper
slim advanced, together with the legal interest. She turned
to leave the shop, when the defendant abused her for going
across the road to look for him, and knocked her against the
doorpost with such violence, that she had suffered therefrom
ever since.

The second charge was made by Alfred Thomas Olive, 19,
Salisbury-street, who stated that at the request of Mrs. Ross,
he went with her to the shop, and that on the money and
ticket being tendered, defendant told him to walk out of the
shop. He (complainant) said he should not do so ; upon
which defendant collared and shook him violently, He also
struck him a blow upon the neck as he was going out at the
door.

Mrs. RCI3II norrobizated Mr. Olive's evidence.
Defendant in each case called his boy, Albert Drew, who
denied that his master had acted with any degree of violence,
either to Mrs. Ross or to Mr. Olive, the latter of whom, as
alleged by him (witness), applied opprobrious epithets towards
his mster, who ejected him from the shop, but with no more
force than was necessary.

The MAGISTRATE further questioned the several witnesses,
and being satisfied that the allegations of unjustifiable vio-
lence had been fully made out, remarked that the cases
brought before him were of a very disgraceful nature, and for
the assault upon Mr. Olive, which was the more violent of
the two, he should inflict a penalty of 31.; for that upon Mrs.
Ross, 21.