The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-01 00:00:00

MINES.

Real del Monte Unregd.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
CARR U. BRIDGES.
The plaintiff in this action is a tailor, in the Edge-
ware-road, and the defendant a plumber and glazier.
The action was brought to recover the sum of 51. 13s. for
goods sold and delivered.
corrir'eeharnock appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
(Judge
The fact% of the case 1844 the de-
fendantof the Palace Court) for the defendant.
contracted 6 case
tiff, and afterwards withthe l '
debt of 151. 9s. SI I p lain-
tiff,
but just prey
amount now demanded! were these:—ln
lao:olok the benefit of the nsolv
clothing to the
serted the first debt of
that he had been discharged fro
he had more .
In his schedule he :only la-
solvent Act. The plaintiff °pi: the debt under the
Court' on
was re-
gd., and now pleaded
ground that there had been a fraudulent
perty to defendant's father, and the the time on the
fl transfer of pro-
manded until 50/. was paid into
plaintiff being appointed assignee. urt on account,
i:
Mr. CORRIE argued that the plaintiff being assignee,
ought not to bring an action for his individual debt, even
though defendant was not exempted from payment
the operation of the Act, but that if any property was in'
possession of defendant, it should be paid into Court for
the benefit of the creditors generally.
Mr. CRARNOCK contended that the twe debts were dis-
tinct, and that the defendant, haring omitted the latter
debt, could not now avail himself of the discharge under
the Act. There was a serious difference in the amount ;
bad both been inserted, the plaintiff would hare been a
creditor for above 201., and could then have obtained a
judge's order to detain the insolvent, but as it was, he
got his immediate discharge by favour of his detaining
creditor.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said it was a question for the
jury whether there had been any "culpable neglect, fraud,
or evil intention," in the omission of the debt. If so, the
verdict must be for the plaintiff. It was for the jury to
say whether they considered that defendant could have
forgotten the last account.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount
claimed.

PARKIN V. MARTIN.

The plaintiff in this action is an accountant, and the
claim was for 5Z 55., fur work and labour done in effect-
ing an arrangement with the defendant's creditors.
It appeared that the defendant had originally employed
Mr. Cross, a solicitor, but the plaintiff was subsequently
engaged to complete the negotiation.
The defendant, who appeared in person, said that
plaintiff was a mere clerk to Mr. Cross, and he (defendant)
only knew him in that capacity, and never gave him any
instructions except through Mr. Cross, whose bill he
had paid.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said Mr. Cross had sworn he
have
had referred defendant to plaintiff, although, at the same
time, he had admitted that he was in the habit of em-
pcircJoysiti hadngp plaintiff on other occasions of a like nature, and
mightid a portion of the present claim. Mr.
also said he would have advanced the money

to effect the arrangement. The question therefore was
whether the retainer of the :plaintiff was by Mr. Cross
or the defendant.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.

DELICATE AFFAIR.—A circumstance of a very
distressing nature has occurred in this city, and will ere long
meet the public eye, A few days ago the daughter of a
highly respectable citizen, who is connected with a public
establishment in this city, was married to a gentleman, a
native of Galway, and after the ceremony proceeded with
him to France ; but the previous marriage of the gentleman
with a lady, by whom he has children, transpired after their
departure, and the unhappy parents of the deluded girl have
been obliged to resort to the laws to punish the offender and
vindicate their respectability. For this purpose a warrant
has been issued for his apprehension, and police-constables
followed him to France. The informations were sworn in
the College. street, Police-office, but their precise contents,
and all the circumstances attendant upon this most heart-
rending case, must for the present remain unrevealed.—
Saunder's News Letter.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
CLERKEN WELL.
Mr. George Smith, who described himself as a man of
independent property, residing in Victoria-road, Peck-
ham, was charged with having been an accomplice with
a female not in custody, in stealing from the house of
Mr. William James Linton, engraver, residing at 85,
Hatton-garden, several silver spoons, wearing apparel,
and half a dozen of claret and other wines.
Mrs. Doman, the female alluded to in the above charge,
attempted to commit suicide by swallowing poison, from
which she is still ill.

Theprosecutor deposed that the prisoner bad been for
some time visiting witness's housekeeper, who passed as
the prisoner's wife. She declined to receive his visits
latterly, and said he had beaten her; she seemed at times
in very low spirits. On Christmas-day be left home
for his country house, leaving directions that the prisoner
should not be admitted before his return on Monday ;
he ascertained that the prisoner had been there until that
morning, when he and the woman absconded. The
wine, silver spoons, two cloaks, and other valuable ar-
ticles, were missed immediately after their departure.
The prisoner acknowledged that he had taken the wine.
The prisoner indignantly denied being the husband of
Mrs. Doman. He had been invited to the house by
Mrs. Doman, who he understood was an acquaintance
of Mr. Linton's. He knew her only since April. He
did not go to Mr. Linton's until invited. He then made
a rambling, incoherent statement, to the effect that Mrs.
Doman had left Mr. Linton's house in April last, when
he first met her. Mr. Linton had sent her money and
a testimonial, but the woman was in distress, and he
(prisoner) gave her all the aid in his power.
Mr. Comm—What are you ? Prisoner—l have no
profession ; I live on my own fortune.
Mr. Comm—Where do you live ? Prisoner—l live
in my own house, 5, Victoria-road, Peckham.
Mr. ComnE—What have you to say to the charge ?
Prisoner—l drank some of the wine.

Mr. Coins—What wine did you drink ? Prisoner
—I drank claret ; Mrs. Doman preferred sherry.
Mr. Coates—liow do you live ? Prisoner—l said
already that I lived on my means, and I say so still. I
have been bequeathed a considerable fortune within the
last twelve months. The house is my own. I live rent
free.

Mr. COMBE—You are a very lucky man, when you
can live rent free, and drink other people's claret free
of cost.

Prisoner—l don't think this is a joking matter.
The Clerk—l am sure Mr. Linton thinks with you.

Prisoner—lf you doubt that lam a man of property,
you can see the will at Doctors'-commons.
Mr. Co1!BE—Is that the best account you can give ?
Prisoner—Yes ; because it is the true account.
Mr. COMBE—Then I must tell you I don't believe a
word of it.

Mr. Linton said, he owed his life to Mrs. Doman, who
came from the Fever Institution to nurse him.
Prisoner—l wish to put a few questions to you, Mr.
Linton.

Mr. COMBE—I will remand you ; for I think you are
one of those persons who live upon women or whoever
else you can. So you can reserve your questions for the
next occasion.