The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-21 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
N RE BROMLEY.—IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL QUESTION.
To-day wan 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. Comm appeared on behalf of the Metropolitan Law
Investment Society, to support a proof for about 1,400/., to
1,100/. of which there was no objection ; the remaining 300/.
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. COOKE 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
held, that although they were not, strictly speaking, sureties,
yet they were persons liable, and that the most liberal in-
terpretation ought to be put on the 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 hankers 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 COMMISSIoNER—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'a 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 COMMISSIONER 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 COMMISSIONER—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. Coottit—lt is a novel case.
The COMMISSIONER said as to the moral justice of the case,
there could not be a doubt; but ho 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 had 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 COMMISSIONER said he could not at present
take the proof, but would consider the point.

INSOLVENCY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)
IN RE C. L. MACDONALD.
The insolvent was opposed by Mr. Nichols, for Mr.
Spencer, who had been plaintiff in an action of cries. con. with
his wife, against the insolvent, which was tried in the Court
of Common Pleas by Lord Chief Justice Tindal, and in which
1004 damages were awarded.
The insolvent's liabilities wholly amounted to 1584, 1401.
of which was for damages and costs in the action of cries.
con.

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 CIIIEF 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 on 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 iu custody
for ten months from the vesting order.

OW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
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 Thorns, 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. Ferster, 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
BO struck him very violently.
Gould 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?"oren When Goold attempted to prevent him from
the slaigd his
ww esayat to
ea. placeta
gentleman
3,h where
he
rhebirth
andad n
ho r
ebeu(si
iihnge s,s a
nt od ghoe,
would " show him up in the Times."
wslifMr. Foster said he was not intoxicated, but was only
lohwtlyasefixocw indeituedn,r t
consequence of the death of a relative,
he
was water, and upon whom the inquiry
si ldeh.e*lißDlNE thought the beadle had received a great deal
of provocation, but nothing couldjustify him, being a con-
stable whose duty it was to preserve peace and order, in
assaulting the complainant. He would, therefore, fine him
403 or, in default, commit him for seven days.
FirheedefirnicekwSaas i!)pa odn and Edwin Ball
beenwere again placed at
the bar before Air. Jardine, having remanded. from
Friday last, upon the charge of throwing a trussel into the
Thames from IVaterloo-bridge.
Mr. JanDtrim, 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, he would commit the prisoners fn trial.
Mr. Powell (lid 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 21. ss. for the wilful damage to
the trussel. This was paid i(lt will be observed that for tendangeringely..
the lives of the
mmedia
public the defendants get off with impunity.)

MARLBROi-STREET--(THIS DAY)
Edward IVilloughby, a job•master, was charged with fu-
rious driving, and running against the carriage of Lord Ran-
furley, of No. 40, Berkeley-square.
About 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon, the defendant, while
driving at a furious rate in Hyde Park, from Cumberland to
Grosvenor-gate, a one-horse four wheel carriage, in which
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. MALTBY 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. MALTI3Y said it was a very bad case, and he should
therefore fine the defendant 21. for furiously driving, and 3/.
for the assault on Lord Ranfurley's page.

GREAT PEDESTRIAN MATCH FOR 1001. A SIDE.—
Yesterday, the long pending match between Robert Fuller, of London,
formerly well known as the most celebrated walking pedestrian of
his day, and Samuel East, of Westminster, a 3 oung aspirant to the
champion's honours, came off near the Duke of York, Gannick-
corner, Barnet, kept by Frank Keys (the old Bow-street officer),
The mon were matched to walk a fair toe-and-heel match lof twenty
miles' distance for a stake 0(200/. Fuller has followed the avocation
of a trainer of pugilists, and East has been engaged in performing
pedestrian races, and has defeated some first-rate men. In the
betting, East, who has the advantage of being younger than his op-
ponent, was the favourite at odds. The start was made at a elippin;
pace, at which time a Considerable concourse of persons were present
and a large sum of money was floating on the race. The first inPe
was turned in eight minutes and a half • Fuller at the lead. East
then showed in front, and maintained the lead. At ten miles Esst
was at au advantage of tour hundred yards. The men continued at
first-rate speed, although it was quite manifest East was the winn'ng
man. The race was kept up till the 18th mile, when Fuller, finding
all chance of winning over, reluctantly gave up the contest ; and
East went in the winner, awd won the 2001. stakes. Large sums of
money were laid on Fuller. It was the general opinion he had over-
trained, and was not competent to the distance.
The Rev. Dr. Wolff, the eminent Oriental traveller
aid wiamiitri, blB beet %volute(' etuipiala to Y1:4%1W lance.

Mr. MAciAutAy said that, with respect to that interview,
he had the strongest possible affidavits from the secretary to
the company, who was present at the time. After the ab-
sence of Mr. Breere, the works were carried on under Mr.
Bawsley, the engineer to the company. The Under- Sheriff
had not put the case to the jury in a proper manner.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE. said that if it was a contract from
Bawsley himself with the plaintiff; the Under-Sheriff might
have been in error, but if it were a contract made by Mr.
Bawsley on the part of the company, it might be merely
the ordinary case of an agent acting without authority.
The proceedings had, however, subsequently been confirmed
by a promise to pay.
Mr. MACAULAY said that Mr. Breere had employed the
plaintiff to do work for the company, but that expression
was merely used to describe the sort of work the plaintiff was
to be employed on, and so it might be with Mr. Bawsley.
With respect to the admission of Alderman Hughes, it might
be a ratification of the employment by Bawsley, but his Lord-
ship would see, on coming to the summing up of the Under-
Sheriff, that throughout the trial Bawsley had never been
treated as the agent of the company, and that the employ-
ment by him was regarded as a thing distinct from the em-
ployment of the company; and consequently the defendant
could not be liable, as a provisional director of the company.
Some discussion here arose as to the point of misdirection
on the Under-Sheriff summinc, up, and it appeared that the
summing up had not been verified on the affidavits.
Mr. Justice COLERI.DGE w
up of the Under-Shmff oughtas ro, of t opiniont
o
the
e thesummmeminog-
ries of counsel.
Mr. MActumitv said that he had always understood that,
where there had been counsel on both sides, the summing up
was not necessarily to be in the affidavits.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said that it would not be necessary
if both parties agreed in their version of it, but in case of any
dissent by the opposite party, how were they to proceed ? In
the superior courts the judge always noted the points, so that
there could be no dispute.
Mr. MAc kITLEY asked permission to be allowed to verify
the summing up of the affidavits. He had got a short-hand
note of the whole proceedings.
Mr. Justice CaLERIDGE intimated that such a course could
not be adopted. The Learned Counsel had better take a rule
to show cause. The case would very likely be brought for
ward by a motion.
Rule nisi granted accordingly.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
COULTIIAS V. TILE REV. DR. ROVES—CaIIa. CON.
Their Lordships this morning, in answer to the application
of Sir Thomas Wilde on behalf of the defendant, granted a
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.