The Sun.
London, England, 1848-09-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENcE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Sept. 15.
(Beforo Mr. Commissioner FANE.)
JUDGMENT.—IN RE RICHARD JEWESSON.

pleading to actions brought against him. It appeared
that the insolvent's half-pay as a Rear-Admiral was 4561.
a year, subject to the income-tax, and to 401. a year set
aside under a former insolvency, in 1835. He had now
a little better than 4001. a year to support himself, wife,
a son, and a daughter. Twice he had been relieved
from his debts—in 1835, and by the Court of Bank-
ruptcy in February, 1846. He now owed abut 1,7001.,
and said, on being pressed, that he could n.t set aside
any portion of his half pay for the creditors.
Among his present creditors were seventeen persons
for wine, spirits, and beer. _

His HONOUR, in the course of an elaborate judgment,
said I do not know that I was ever called upon to pro-
nounce a decision upon a certificate in which I was less
satisfied with the investigation that had taken place than
I am in this case, and I am of opinion that there has
not been an impartial investigation in this case. It is
quite evident that this is the bankrupt's fiat, worked by
his agents for his purposes. Mr. Peddell is the solicitor
who took out the fiat, and worked throughout, and he
has long been the bankrupt's own attorney. As such ho
lass brought and defended many actions for him, and I
am sorry to be obliged to say that, in defending two of
these actions most discreditable defences were used. In
one, the bankrupt being sued by a northern banking
company, on a bill of exchange, served on the 24th of
November, 1847, a notice through Mr. Peddell on the
banking company, that he had committed an act of
bankruptcy, without specifying what the act was.
The object of this notice a most dishonest one
evidently was to terrify the banking company from
proceeding at law, and yet not give them the means of
proceeding in bankruptcy ; for, strange to say, that a
trader informing his creditor that he has committed an
act of bankruptcy, is not an act of bankruptcy. In
another action, also, in 1847, the bankrupt, through Mr.
Peddell, defended himself, by showing that a bill which
he had accepted, dated Bombay, was drawn in London.
In October, 1847, Mr. Peddell again appears taking an
active part in furthering the bankrupt's views, for on the
9,th he prepared a bill of sale, conveying the whole of
the bankrupt's furniture to a creditor for money lent
Miss Lindo, to whom the bankrupt had addressed a let-
ter on the 9th of June preceding, in these words—" Miss
Lindo is, by the bill of sale, professedly the owner of the
furniture." Yet the bankrupt has bad the use of it
ever since. Lastly, Mr. Peddell is the solicitor who
attests the declaration of insolvency, signed by the
bankrupt on the 28th of April, 184 S, and takes out
the fiat against him. Then, who was the peti-
tioning creditor ? It was a Mr. Lane. But Mr, Lane
was the indorsee from Mr. Peddell himself of a bill of
exchange for 50/., which had been before indorsed by
Jewesson to Peddell, and it is a remarkable circumstance
that Lane swears that he gave Peddell the full sum of
501,, so that the transaction was not a transaction of
discount. Under such circumstances, can it be doubted
that Mr. Lane was the instrument of Mr. Peddell?
Then who was the assignee chosen by the creditors ?
It was the same Mr. Lane, and who were the creditors
who chose him ? Mr. Lane, himself a small creditor
for 461., and a creditor who voted by power of attorney,
entrusted to Mr. Peddell, those who voted in the choice
being creditors amounting to about 4001., out of a total
debit against the bankrupt of about 8,0001. The whole
management of the bankruptcy having thus fallen into
the hands of Mr. Peddell, no proper inquiry has, in my
opinion, been made. When, however, the bankrupt ap-
plied for his certificate, Mr. Lloyd;of Milk-street, opposed
for two creditors. The first objection was, that the
transfer of property to Miss Lindo was an unfair
preference, and I are of opinion that it was. I have
often laid it down that, as soon as one creditor
takes legal proceedings against a bankrupt, the bank-
rupt is bound to examine the state of his affairs, and
if he finds himself unable to meet his engagements, then
to call his creditors together and lay his situation before
them, and if they require him to sign a declaration of
insolvency he is bound to do so, and he is not to struggle
on, postponing the evil day and distributing his pro-
perty unfairly amongst his creditors. The bankrupt was
sued by many of his creditors between July and Novem-
ber, and in answer to a question put by Mr. Lloyd, said,
" I cannot say how often I was sued." It is clear,
therefore, that he ought to have made himself bankrupt
prior to October, when he transferred his property to
Miss Lindo. Mr. Woofer was examined before me,
and according to his evidence the bankrupt told Wooller
that Jones was about getting judgment against him;
but that he had got Mr. Peddell to secure his property in
the bands of Miss Lindo, and he said, also, he wished he
had employed another solicitor, because it would look
suspicious, Peddell being Miss Lindo's solicitor. This,
therefore, was an unfair preference. The other objec-
tion was, that the bankrupt had acted most unfairly
towards Messrs. Benison and Co., the holders of a bill
for 2481. odd, accepted by him. As to this, the facts
were, that one Lamont (as we understood), with whom
the bankrupt had had accommodation transactions,
brought him a bill for acceptance, purporting to be drawn
by Messrs. Hopkinson and Co., at Bombay, but being
really drawn in London. This bill he accepted to en-
able Lamont to raise money upon it for their joint pur-
poses. The bill not being paid at maturity, Messrs. Beni-
son sued the bankrupt, and the latter defended himself by
showing' that the bill was void, being really drawn in
London. Even on the bankrupt's own statement I can-
not doubt that the bankrupt knew Thompson's hand-
writing, and that when he accepted the bill he knew he
should have that defence to an action, which he after
wards wickedly availed himself of. Then it was urged
upon me that Mr. Lloyd, for an individual creditor, had
no right to go into the case of Misers. Benison, one cre-
ditor not being allowed to take up the case of another ;
and, as a general rule, I concur with that pro-
position, because I think it is the duty
of the assignees to take up the cases of indi-
vidual creditors ; but this rule is founded on
the supposition that there are assignees, really and
honestly acting for the creditors, to whom that duty may
properly be entrusted; but here there are no assignees.
I look upon the assignee and solicitor to the fiat in this
case as the instruments to the bankrupt; and whenever I
am satittled thuc such is the case I wifl accept from soy
qaarter sue% information as will enable me to judge
whether I can with propriety send back a bankrupt into
the trading world with a certificate of good conduct. It
was also said that if Messrs. Benison were here, they
could not be heard; but I will never countenance such
an argument, because it amounts to this, that- the very
ruccess of the knavery precludes complaint. The Com-
missioner is bound to listen to proof that the bankrupt,
hiLt calling himself a trader, issued his acceptance into
th.: money market, with the full intention of pleading,
when sued, that it was gool for nothing. I fear that I
ought to refuse the certificate altogether, but I am so ua•
wilting to inflict a punishment that is to last for life, that
I have determined to take 'a miller course, ald in the
hope that by reflection the bankrupt may satisfy himself
that that which he may perhaps have deemed a com-
paratively innocent trick, was for all substantial pur-
pas ‘s little, if anything, short of theft, and may form
better resolutions fur the future, I will go no further
than to suspend his certificate for three years from this
date, without protection, one year for not having made
himself bankrupt before he transferred his property to
Miss Linde, and two years for accepting the bill dated
Bombay, knowing it to have been drawn in London,
and pleading that fact as a defence to an action on the
bill.

Mr. Sargood represented several small creditors for
debts incurred in the Queen's Prison since the insolvent
petitioned the Court in July, 1847. He had remained in
prison since that period, and as he could not be dis-
charged from debts contracted after the vesting order,
he (Mr. Sargood) prayed that they might be struck out
of the schedule.
Mr. COOKE established in evidence that in the case
of Messrs. Steele the costs of the action amounted to
37L, and in the action of Messrs. Brown and Redpath
to 251.

Mr. Bennett, the creditor, in person, stated that ho
had the insolvent in prison in France. He was dis-
charged after thirteen months' confinement, and through
the exertions of the Sisters of Charity. Some money
had been paid. Ho was now ono of the detaining cre-
ditors for about 30/.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER, on the conclusion of the
evidence, asked the insolvent several times whether he
was disposed to set aside a portion of his income for his
creditors ? The insolvent said he had a sick wife ; ho
had not the means of setting anything aside. He was
upwards of sixty years of age.
CHIEF COMMISSIONER-Why, you have 400/ a year.
I again ask you, will you do anything for your cre-
ditors?

The insolvent declined to make any proposal; but
after an intimation from his attorney, said he would give
201 a year.
Mr. NICHOLS asked for permission for the case to
stand over, and he would advise the insolvent to make
a proposal.
The case stood over, and an application was after-
wards made to dismiss the petition, the insolvent under-
taking to file a new petition to include all his debts, and
promised to make a proposal for his creditors; the
amount was not stated. _ _

His HoNoUR consented to dismiss the petition, as he
considered it would be for the benefit of the creditors.
He told the insolvent that he belonged to a noble pro-
fession, the members of which were of straightforward
and honest bearing. • "Do not," added the Learned
Commissioner, " tarnish its lustre."
The COURT decreed the dismissal of the petition on
another being filed.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HARRIS.)
IN RE GODFREY YOUNG.

This insolvent, who had been a collector of poor,
church, and other rates, of St. Mary, Newington Butts,
was opposed by Mr. Crouch, for a Mr. Pegg, and sup-
ported by Mr. Sargood.
It appeared that the insolvent, who is now registrar
of births, marriages, and deaths in the same parish, was
a defaulter to some extent as a parish collector, and Mr.
Pegg and Mr. Batellellor, his two sureties, had to pay
upwards of 2001. Mr. Pegg was now a creditor for nearly
500/. The braid given by Mr. Pegg was not in court,
and it was decided that the individual case could not be
proved. An opposition was made by another creditor.
Mr. Commissioner HARMS told the insolvent that had
the evidence been complete he would have been re-
manded on the serious charge made against him. It
was a case for the discretionary clause, and he remanded
the insolvent for four calendar months.

BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT, Sept. 15.
CROUCH V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAIL

WAY COMPANY.

The plaintiff in this case was Mr. George Crouch, of
Tudor-street, Whitefriars, who sought to recover from
the London and North-Western Railway Company the
sum of ss. 10d., which it was alleged had been over-
charged by that company for conveying a basket of small
parcels from Sheffield to London.

Mr. Dod appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Russell on
behalf of the company.
It appeared that many years ago the plaintiff's father
opened an office in London for the conveyance of small
parcels to distant parts of the country. The mode of
transit then adopted was by the ordinary means of con-
veyance. The smaller parcels being collected together
and placed in one large package, were forwarded to the
agent in the country for his distribution to the parties to
whom the goods were directed. The business having
fallen into the hands of the plaintiff, he continued to carry
it on in a similar manner, until the railways drove off
all other means of conveyance on the road, and then the
parcels were sent per rail. On the 7th of July a basket,
containing small parcels, was delivered at the plaintiff's
office, for which 83. 3d. was charged. To this he de-
murred, eying, that the amount he had previously paid
for a package of the same weight was only 2,3. 5d., and
he paid the full amount under protest, and his pre-
sent action was to recover back the sum alleged to be
overpaid.
For the defence, Mr. RUSSELL contended that there
were many grounds upon which the plaintiff ought to
be nonsuited ; one was, that the London and North-
Western Railway Company were sued for what they
' never undertook to perform. They were alleged to have
overcharged fur conveying a package from Sheffield to
London, when the fact Ras, they never undertook to
carry any goods from that place. The parties ,cho did
were the North Midland Railway Company. It was
elong their line that the goods were conveyed until they
got to liuglty, and that company afterwards settled with
the North-Western Company for running their vans and
trucks on the remainder of the distance to Camden-
town. Another ground of nonsuit wao, that by the 7th
Vie., cap. viii. sic. 64, the company had the power of
charging fur the carriage of any small pared not exceed-
ing 500 lbs. any sum which they thought fit. On the
15th of July the company passed a resolution, that all
"packed small parcels" should be charged Id. par lb.
for 100 miles, and 14d. per lb. over that distance. The
question, therefore, was, had the company the power to
make the resolution; if so, the plaintiff must not find
fault with the same.

Mr. Cobby, superintendent of the parcels department
of the North Midland Railway at Sheffield, said that the
company were the only carriers known to the public in
that town. A parcel sent there, to be delivered in Lon-
don, if unpaid, would bo debited to the North-Western,
who would collect tho carriage for the same, and after-
wards settle with the North Midland Company. The
Midland Company began to enforce the charge on the
15th of July. Kennett, of Saow-hill, was charged the
same as Mr. Crouch.

The JUDGE said that the question was one of consi-
derable public importance, and he would rather it had
been tried in a higher court, He should order the plain-
tiff to be nonsuitt d, which would give him an opportu-
nity of trying the case in a superior court.
The plaintiff was, accordingly, nonsuited.

Suspended accordingly for three years, without pro-
tection. ,

IN RE PEDIGAL AND DRADEY.

These bankrupts were wine-merchants, of Clcment's-
lane, and to-day applied for their certificates.
Mr. Murray appeared to oppose, and Mr. Lawrence
supported.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(13,Cure the ASSISTANT-JUDGE.)
The Court sat yesterday at the Westminster Sessions•
hours.

somewhat lengthened ditcusiion took place, the re-
sult of which. Wa3,

Jeannette Macdonald, alias Maria de Maria, alias
Mary Bally, alias Ellen Smith, alias Ellen Johnson ;
Sanderson Sanderson, alias Sanderson Herbert ; Mary
Sanderson, alias Mary Sanderson Herbert, and Jane
Morgan, were named in an indictment for keeping a
house of ill-fame in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-
Fields.
Jeannette Macdonald was the only person that sur-
rendered for trial.
Mr. Ballantine was for the prosecution, and Mr. Parry
for the defendant.
The house in question was situated in Oxsndon-street,
near the Haymarket, and the defendant Jeannette Mac-
donald, better known as Maria do Monis, was the ma-
nager. This was proved by an old woman who was
servant in the house.
Mr.PARRY, in an energetic speech, denounced the
system under which, at the present time, prosecutions
were carried on. If a common informer complained to
the parish authorities of any house they had to prose-
cute, and in the event of their declining, the informer
could do it himself, and on a conviction of the parties,
the informer became entitled to 101. This had the effect
of making these prosecutions a trade, and a system of
extortion, for in nine cases out of ten there were com-
promises made, and public justice was defeated. In the
present case the parish authorities were the prosecutors,
but why did they kingle out the woman at the bar? The
defendant was neither manager nor proprietor of this
house; she was a mere servant, and instead of being
placed at a criminal bar, why did the authorities not
look for the real offender—the landlord of the house,
and inflict upon him the penalty which the law directed?
There were those in London who lived in affluence,
and maintained influential positions in society,
who derived their oppulence from this source,
and who secretly encouraged this degrading traffic.
It was proved in this ease that the owner of the
house realised about 141. a night, or something like
4,000/. a year. and yet the woman at the bar was to be
the victim. He had advised her to plead guilty, know-
ing that if she did so she would be let off under recog-
nizances, and that if convicted she would be sent to the
House of Correction; but her answer was that she was
net guilty, and that rather than purchase her liberty by
saying that she was guilty, she would submit to trans-
portation for life; she was not guilty, for she was only a
servant of a more guilty person, and ought not to suffer
for the crimes which another had committed.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The ASSISTANT-JUDGE said that the prisoner could, if
she chose, disclose who was the real proprietor of this
house, and who received the proceeds; if she gave this
information, and assisted in the detection of the culprit,
it would be taken into consideration. The sentence was
that the defendant be imprisoned for the space of three
months, with hard labour.
John Adams pleaded Guilty to a similar charge.
The defendant stated that he paid fifty guineas a
month for the use of the house to a Mr. Flight, who
knew the purposes for which the house was used. He
(defendant) had nothing to do with the house now, as he
had given up the key.
Cooper, a policeman, in reply to the Bench, said that
a man named Ginness was included in the indictment
against the defendant. A Bench warrant had been ob-
tained against him at the instance of Mr. Le Breton, the
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Sept. 15. vestry-clerk of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, whose
gave it to witness to execute. This clerk sent witness a
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.) letter directing him not to execute the warrant against
IN RE HENRY BOURCHIER.
directed the
Ginness, as he (Ginness) had agreed to pay the law costs
The insolvent, a Rear-Admiral in the royal navy, was the parish had been put to. Ginness escaped out of the
too late.
opposed by Mr. Cooke, for Messrs. Steele, drapers, and country, andvt
the reason The
when this was told to the clerk, he then
Messrs. Brown and Redpath, ironmongers ; also by Mr, e ness to execute the warrant, but it was
who informed against Bargood, personal creditor, and Mr. Bennett, a tailor, in
vrdefendantas
sot t a
kweans takenhef.o re nextwas
,mt
that
in
Bernell,, an
Person..•:He was supported by Mr. Nichols.
transport, would
not
tt th® house, and who was a returned
The tomplaint of the creditors was that the insolvent
delay would effect.
had. got. rid- of his half-pay without paying them, and
a compromise between him and the
point him out, in the hope that the
thate had in two instances (the creditors represented
by Mr
C 949) vcinicienbly addod W &heir debts by defendant'.

His Hu:comt granted the bankrupts their certificates.

IN RE THOMPSON.

This bankrupt was an attorney at Northampton, and
about three years since applied to this Court fur his cer-
tificate, which was absolutely refused.
An application was recently made to the Court to re,
consider its judgment, and the Learned Commissioner
then deferred saying anything upon the matter, by way
of a final decision, until he had looked into the matter.
His HoNona to-day said that he considered this to be
a very gross case, and a great quantity of affidavits had
been banded in by the bankrupt to rebut the charges
made against him, but his Honour did not think that
they touched the point in question, excepting one; but
yet, he (Mr. Commissioner Fane) mutt refuse the appli-
cation.

IN RE JOHN GIBBS.
This bankrupt, a boot and shoemaker, of Lewes, Sus-
sex, came up on the balance-sheet, prepared by Mr.
Glover, Bucklersbury, to pass his last examination. The
balance-sheet shows a total of 1,1361.
Neither the assignees nor creditors opposed, and the
bankrupt passed.
The bankrupt then applied to have a day name] for
his certificate.

His HoNoun said that ho must arrange with Mr. Com-
missioner Shepherd's diary as to the date, and desired
the bankrupt to tell that Learned Commissioner that he
(Mr. Commissioner Fane) was perfectly satisfied with
the accounts.—Passed accordingly.