The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-14 00:00:00

IN RE IV. CLUNES.

The bankrupt, a pawnbroker, of Brydges-street, Co-
♦ent-garden, came up to pass his last examination. His
debts amount to 19,0001., and the assets are stated to be
to the extent of 10,0001. His profits were 14,7441., the
expenses being— trade expenses, 6.5731. ; personal,
5,455/. ; and interest and discount, 7,3751. The balance
sheet showed a total of 34,000/.

No opposition was offered, and the bankrupt was de-
clared to have passed his last examination.

IN RE JAMES HUDSON.

The bankrupt was a boarding-house-keeper, at Lark-
hall-lane, Clapham, and came up to pass his last exa-
mination.

His HONOUR said that the bankrupt commenced with
a deficiency, and having incurred debts to the extent of
1,0001. in eighteen months, came to this cout t with no-
thing for his creditors. No books had been kept, nor
a trade assignee chosen, and therefore the case must be
adjourned sine die, with leave to apply again.
Protection was granted.
CERTIFICATES GRANTED.

C. E. Coils, of High-street, Poplar, draper, was
granted without opposition; as also those of C. L Ed-
wards, Great Sutton street, Cierkenwell, currier, and
Henry Shaw, Southampton-row, Russell square, and
Chelsea, china and glass dealer.

The other cases laid before his Honour were of no
public importance, and the Court rose shortly before
four o'clock.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Guildford, Aug. 11.
CIVIL SIDE.--(Before the Loun CHIEF BARON and a
Common Jury.)
ALLCOCK V. BUTT.

Mr. Chambers and Mr. Pearson wire for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Sergeant C. Jones for the defendun*.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as one of
the sureties to a loan society, rail the %Vest Marylebone
Loan Society, to recover from the defendant, as his co-
surety, a sum of 231. 175., being the balance of a sum
which he alleged he had been improperly called upon to
pay, and was entitled to be reimbursed by the de(endant.
The circumstances of the case appeared to be of rather
a peculiar character. It seemed that William Butt, the
brother of the defendant, was desirous of borrowing a
sum of 501. from the loan society in question, and the
plaintiff consented to sign a promissory note for the
amount, in conjunction with the present defendant,
Edward Butt, the understanding being, according to the
case for the plaintiff, that he was to be held perfectly
harmless in the transaction, and that the defendant and
his brother were to be the really responsible parties for
the repayment of the money. The loan was paid off
pretty regularly, but at length it appeared that there was
an arrear of 10/. due upon it, with 21. for fines and about
this time William Butt destroyed himself. Very soon after-
wards it appeared that the note was handed to a person
named Israel, but under what circumstances did not
precisely appear, except that it was suggested it was
the intention of the parties to place it in the hands of an
attorney, who was a friend, in order that he might sue
in a superior Court, and obtain the extra costa, and very
shortly afterwards an application was made to Mr. All.
cock by an attorney named Humphries, in Feather-
stone-buildings, who represented that the promissory
note was in the possession of a person named Elizabeth
Shaw, who had given consideration for it, and who bad
instructed him to sue for the whole amount. Mr. All-
cock consulted his attorney, Mr. Wellborn, upon this
application, and he made inquiries; but finding that it
would be very difficult to obtain evidence of fraud, he
advised the plaintiff to come to terms with the parties,
and he agreed to pay twenty-one pounds for the debt,
and 71. 17s. 6d. for the costs, it appearing perfectly clear
that at this time no more than 101. was actually due upon
the note. It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that
the whole of the 28/. 17s. 6d. was paid by him according
to the arrangement, and upon application being made
to the defendant to repay the money, it was stated
that he at once, in the presence of Mr. Wellborn, ad-
mitted that the plaintiff had only put his name to the
note at his request, to accommodate his brother, and that
he ought not to be a loser, and he promised to pay the
money on the sth of June, and it was stated that he did
pay 51. on account, thus reducing the claim to the
amount now sought to be recovered. The case on the
part of the defendant was that Allcock being hiAself in
needy circumstances, had several times :been concerned
with William Butt in loan transactions, and that this was
ono of a similar character, and that he was perfectly
well aware that only 101. were due upon. the note, and
that, consequently, it was not likely he should have paid
28/. 17s. It was also positively sworn that when the
plaintiff's attorney was making application to the de-
fendant, that Allcock admitted only 101. were due, and it
was arranged that the defendant should pay 5/., and that
Allcock should also pay 51., and so settle the matter, and
it was alleged that the 51. paid by the defendant was in
pursuance of that agreement, and that he also told All-
cock that if he allowed any legal proceedings to take
place, he must pay the costs himself.
The CHIEF Bartow, in the course of the case, ex-
pressed an opinion that the plaintiff could not recover in
this action the amount that he had paid over the sum
actually due upon the note; but that was a question
between him and the loan society, and the defendant
would only be liable upon the sum actually due upon the
promissory note.
Mr. CHAMBERS, in replying upon the whole case,
urged that all the circumstances of the case showed the
version of the transaction given on the part of the
plaintiff was a correct one, and that he was entitled to a
verdict.

The CHIFF BARON, in summing up, said it was quite
clear that there was deliberate falsehood either upon
one side or the other, and he was very glad it was
for the jury to decide the question upon which side the
truth lay. It was suite clear that there had been some
very gross fraud practised with regard to the note in ques-
tion, and that the secretary to the Loan Society bad
enabled that fraud to be committed by passing the note.
The Learned Judge then went through the evidence,
and said, after explaining why, in law, in his opinion, the
larger amount could not be recovered, that if they be-
lieved the defendant's witnesses they must return first a
verdict for the plaintiff for 11., because that amount, ac•
cording to their own showing, would still be due; but if
they thought the plaintiff had made out his case they
would then find a verdict for 61.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff, damages 61.
Mr. CHAMBERS then applied to his Lordship for a cer-
tificate that the cause was a proper one to be tried in a
superior Court.
The Cntnir BARON said he did not think he ought to
grant a certificate. The costs of actions in the supe-
rior Courts were so enormous, and the County Courts
were so beneficial, that ho was always inclined to
let the law take its course where less than 201. was in-
volved, unless some question of right was involved in the
inquiry. The costs of this action would probably bo 1001.
or 120/., and it might just as well have been tried in the
County Court, where the costs would not have been more
than 101. or 151.
Mr. CHAMBERS reminded the Court that there was a
question of law involved in the inquiry.
The CHIEF BARON said at present he was not inclined
to grant the certificate, but he would consider the matter
during the assizes.
CROWN COURT.—AUGUST 12.
(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
Willinm Harris, aged 27 years, was indicted for the
wilful murder of his mother, Jane Harris, by beating her
and casting her upon the ground.
Mr. P. Taylor prosecuted; Mr. Robinson was for the
defence.
This case occupied the Court the greater part of the
day, but the principal facts of the charge lay in a very
small compass. It appeared that the deceased was a
dissolute old woman, who got her living by begging, and
her son, the prisoner, also led an idle vagabond life, and
that they frequently quarrelled and exchanged blows
with each other. On the night of the 25th March they
were at Guildford, and it seemed that they made their
way to a lime-kiln in the neighbourhood, where they in-
tended to pass the night. The next morning the de-
ceased was found in a shed close to the lime-kiln, very
much beaten and bruised, and covered with blood, and it
appeared that the injuries she received were of such a
nature as to cause her death very shortly afterwards.
Hollington, the inspector of police at Guildford, imme-
diately instituted the necessary inquiries, and he ascer-
tained that the prisoner and three other men, named
Bignall, Wood, and Stevens, had passed the night in
question in the lime-kiln along with the deceased,
and ho caused them all to bo taken into custody. At
first they denied having seen any violence made
use of towards the deceased, but ultimately they ex-
pressed a desire to tell the truth, and they then stated
that the prisoner had knocked his mother down by, a
violent blow with his fist, and that' he then dragged her
several times round the kiln, and afterwards lifted her up
two or three times, and threw her with great force upon
the ground, and that she was insensible from that time
until daybreak, when they carried her out and placed her
in the shed, where she was found in the state above de-
scribed. When the prisoner was first apprehended, and
told the charge that was made against him, he denied
having struck his mother, and declared that she had re-
ceived the injury by falling down a chalk pit, but while