The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-10 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY

41A
47

3 dia.

104
80

103%
11,f

25 14

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
PENNELL V. HILL.
Mr. HUMPHREY showed cause against the resciddment
of an order of Mr. Baron Alderson, for the payment of
1721. 4s. 4d., being the amount of a bill of costs incurred
for three actions, tried in the Court of Exchequer, for
the recovery of church-rates. A demur had been made
to the payment of costs, on the ground that the plaintiffs
had never been in any way retained by the defendant.
The principal point of the case was to settle the meaning
of the Act of Parliament as to the power of a judge to
enforce such an order without signing judgment. The
plaintiffs hail made affidavits that they had been regu-
larly retained, and had adduced evidence to prove their
assertion; the defendant, on the contrary, denied their
allegations, and affirmed his right to go to a jury to try
the correctness of his own denial. Formerly, the taxa-
tion of a bill of costs by a defendant was a legal as well
as a virtual allowance of the ♦alidity of the bill, and
made him liable for the amount; but by the later statute,
where the retainer is disputed, a right of trial is made to
arise, and the question now was, as to whether a simple
denial of the retainer in the present case was a sufficient
reason for granting a trial.
It being shown that no affidavit had been put in by
Mr. IEII before Mr. Baron Alderson, at the time the
order was made, the trial was refused, unless the money
was paid into Court within a month, and an undertaking
'o appear was given so that the cause be tried next term,

SECONDARIES'..__ THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary PorrEa.)
LUCAS AND ANOTHER WILLIAIUs.
This was an action to recover 35/. on aguarantee.
The plaintiffs are builders at Chichester, and defendant
a builder in Tottenham Court-road. The guarantee was
given for a debt due by a third party. It was proved in
evidence that defendant had admitted he had given ton
this and had promised to pay the amount; and on
this a verdict was given for the amount claimed.
DEAN V. POCOCK.
This was an action to recover 941. 25., for services
rendered by plaintiff as a surveyor in making a 'valua-
tion of property required for railway purposes. The
question was one of amount, and there were a great
number of witnesses on each side. The case was likely
to last the greater part of the day.

•
MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS DAY.)
(Before the ASSISTANT JUDGE and County Magistrates.)
William Thebbald, stableman, aged 20, was indicted
for stealing a silver watch and appendages, of the value
of 81., the property of Charles Bachelor.
From the prosecutor's evidence it appeared that on the
morning of the 3d inst., about half-past five o'clock, he
was awakened by the noise of some one moving about
in his bedroom. On drawing aside the bed curtains, he
saw the prisoner in the act of taking his watch off the
mantel-shelf. He asked the prisoner what brought him
there, and the prisoner ran out of the room. The pro-
secutor jumped out of bed, ran down stairs after the
prisoner, whom he saw running up a court at some dis •
lance. He followed across some gardens, and saw the
prisoner go into an outhouse, where he bolted himself
in. The witness spoke to him " through the door," de-
manding his watch, of which the prisoner denied having
possession. The prosecutor guarded the door of the
outhouse himself until the prisoner was taken into
custody. During all this time the prosecutor had
no other covering than his shirt and stockings.
The watch was not found in the prisoner's possession,
but when the latter was taken, the policeman, oa going
over the same ground over which the chase had been
run, perceived footmarks across a garden, tracking out
of the direct line of the prisoner's course, to a corner of
the garden, where he found the watch buried a little way
in the ground.
The defence set up by Mr. MILLAR was, that the
watch was only taken by way of a " lark," without any
intention of felony.
Several witnesses were called to character.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, but recom.
mended the prisoner to mercy, on account of his pre
vious good character.

The ABSISTANT•JUDOE said that the recommenda-

tion sated the prisoner six months' of his imprisonment,
but the least sentence be could pass for this impudent
robbery was, that of three months' imprisonment and
hard labour.

ATTORNEY•GENERAL V. WILSON.
The arguments of Mr. MALIN on behalf of the defen •
dant to ti.is information, occupied his Honour the Vice-
Chancellor of England the whole morning.
(Before the Vice Canceller KNIGHT BRUCE.)
Bankrupt petitions of no general interest occupied his
Honour the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce the whole
day.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGItAM.)
The arguments in the part heard case of Macgregor
and Bainbridge occupied the Vice-Chancellor Wigram
the whole morning.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE
THE QUEEN V. THE JUDGE OF THE WEYBRIDGE COUNTY
COURT.-11IANDANUS.
Mr. DASENT applied, on behalf of a half-pay officer in
the navy, fur a rule calling upon the Judge of the County
Court of Wey bridge to show cause why a mandamus
should not issue to compel him to issue his final order o
protection in an insolvent case. The County Court Act
gave the Judges of these tribunals jurisdiction i❑ in-
solvent cases, providing that where it was shown that
the insolvent's dealings had been bona fide, and that
no fraud or extravagance appeared to have charac-
terised his mode of living, the Judge should at
once grant his a final order of protection. The
naval gentleman in question had unfortunately been
compelled to seek the benefit of the Act in the county
court of Weybridge, and the proceedings had gone un
regularly and satisfactorily both to the creditors and the
insolvent up to the time of granting the final order, when
a Mr. Churchill, who represented the creditors, stated
that they were anxious that a portion of the insolvent's
halt pay should be annually set apart to satisfy their
claims. The insolvent protested, that besides being I
strictly prohibited by the 9th of George ILL,
from acceding to such a proposal his half-pay
was barely sufficient to ket p himself and fa-
mily, but the judge of the county court declined
to accept this excuse, and absolutely refused to grant
the final order until the insolvent would consent to lay
aside every year 241. of his half•pay towards liquidating
the debts of his creditors. Now, it was clear that the
judge had gone beyond his duty, for the Act of Parlia-
ment strictly specified that where • there was no fraud
upon the lace of the insolvent's proceedings he should
be entitled to insist upon the judge granting him his
final order. Besides, in this case the judge was assum-
ing the part of an opposing creditor and not of a judge;
and as the creditors offered no opposition it was an act
of manifest injustice to withheld the final order of
protection.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said if the Learned Counsel's
interpretation of the Act were correct, the office of the
judge was simply ministerial, and not judicial. He
would, therefore take time to look into the Act, and
reserve his decision till a future day.

HORSHAM BOROUGH BILL.
Sir G. GREY proposed that the second reading of
the Horsham Borough Bill should be postponed for a
week.
A short discussion ensued upon this motion, in the
course of which
Mr. C. GORING said if the second reading of the
Bill was postponed, he would move the issuing of a new
writ to-morrow.
Mr. HENLEY opposed the postponement, and said
it reflected no credit on Government. They were
with
tlh)eS O
BillN
o r called
consent unbsptyitoini
int HousetonttothhhfeetteuhhGeliefi)ori issuing
the
eo
writ.
anxious that the Bill should be delayed.
pro-
ceedAirve.
swetChAatioaaowl tcslymereadetml
arighthahl
for
euti
ai esestp:hps
Commissioners
nneemnaodpt
etssrgpahr,
most
tersebwopdumbw:heresacesnoi
esirni
vldongoegef txrfdi hassnveemjal
assisting
generalsent
bid
dopposition,isedown e
nßilldissensions.
iof boneorsar .
heomiu fe g
had i I i
boroughs
r, a
len, itrecollected
this
livthat
eanytmeApdriel
seein,nldtai tlsdltheoecowatuenel
ddsf
gasyßnet, Minister
n. i
dtflhihliaetett
passed into a law there would be lots of pettifoggers
receiving the five guineas a day under it; but he trusted
it'theto a townßilldid the
kicked
u
fir first commissioner
by
the
people who was
sent
without
pass, that
ceremony.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Sir G. GREY,
Colonel SIBTHORI' warmly sympathised with the
sentiments expressed by the Won. Member for Sunder-
land. He did not object to inquiry, but he did object to
the inquiry being confined to one or two places. The
inquiry ought to be general. There had been some talk
of iitronage, and he, for one, thought if the House
wished to get rid of the evils attendant upon patronage,
it would at once set to work and scour the Treasury
bench. The House was, perhaps, not aware that there
was a sum of money voted annually for secret services.
He strongly suspected that a good deal of 'hat money
was spent in returning Members to the Treasury bench.
Sir J. HANMER assured the Hon. and Gallant
Member that the general Bill would not include the
town he represented, so far as the Hon. and Gallant
Member himself was concerned.
Mr. SPOONER opposed the motion for postpone-
ment, believing it to be a trick of the Government to
get rid of an inconvenient inquiry.
Sir G. GREY denied that that was the object of the
motion.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the postponement
Against it ..................................
Majority —l9
.......... ..
The second reading of the Bill was accordingly post-
poned for a week.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. HUDSON urged upon the Committee the expe-
diency of allowing the provisions of the Bill to be
f
administered in the country, and not in the Court of
Chancery. It would be far more convenient to the
li'le it would be an advantage to all parties
public, a i
interested in the Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was not at present
accede to
H
prepared to say whether Government could
the proposal of the Hon. Member, but it should have
their best consideration.
Mr. srUART reminded the Committee that this
was not the first time this amendmenthad been
to have made
sug-
gested. Surely, then, Government oughtemajority of the
up their minds upon it by this time. Th
commercial world were in favour of local administra-
tion, and he thought, as it would as" expense, and be
convenient to the public, the amendment ought to be
adopted.
Mr. HAYTER, said it appeared to him that the
Honourable and Learned Gentlemanva•nistration of the Bill
who had just sat
down was desirous that the
}l‘
should be placed in the hands o the local bankruptcy
and Learned Gentle-
man, '
commissioner. The Honourable
man, however, forgot that the questions involved in this
jurisdiction of a
ledge or
Bill were beyond the knowledge or
questions to be
local commissioner of bankruptcy.
1 y of an equity raised under under this Bill were pure
a local bankruptcy
meter, and he doubted whether
to deal with them. commissioner would be competent
the postponement of the
Mr. AGLIONBY thought
great inconvenience clause would be attended with
the .
his Hon. Friends He differed with
Solicitor-
General and the Judge-Advocatefred. lie preferred far
which the subject should be reer
to
the
Corn-
the referring of the subject of Bankruptcy th
an
to
Com-
missioners of the Court
to a Master in Chancery The proceedings in that
Court were not in great
favour with the public, on ac-
count of their dilatory and expensive nature.
o h that how. t
The SOLICITOR GENERAL thug
ever competent the Commissioners of the Court
of Bankruptcy might be
to consider the question,
they'
they had not a very extensive knowledge o f winding up
the affairs of companies with a great number of
partners.
Mr. HENLEY thought that
the Commissioners
of
Bankruptcy were by far the best tribunals to consider
the subject. The gentlemen who had been ap-
pointed Commissioners of Bankruptcy were as of high
t a standing at the bar as those who were appointed
Masters in Chancery. He thought the beat course to
pursue would he to leave it to the discretion of the
judge whether the matter should be sent to one of the
Commissioners of Bankruptcy or to a Master in Chan-
cery.

fir. BARNES thought the amendment of the Hon.
MepTher tor Sunderland was a most reasonable one
and' ought to be adopted. He could not see what objee:
tiod there could be to the Lord Chancellor having the