The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-10 00:00:00

TILE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAr MORNING, JULY 10, 1846.

LACY INTELLIGEN CE.

ROLLS' CuURT, July 9.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. ISIORISIS.
This case was mentioned to-day by order.
HODGKINSON v. WYATT.
This was an exception taken to the report of the Master
by the defendant, to a Bill to the effect that the defendant
was bond fide mortgagee to the plaintiff for a sum of 6001.
The Master's report found that the defendant was indebted to
the plaintiff in a sum of 530/., while the defendant alleged
that he owed the plaintiff but 330/. The debt was proved
by the evidence of a porter in the employ of the plaintiff,
which, it was also alleged, was an insufficient proof of debt.
Mr. Roupell opened the case, and was followed on the same
side by Mr. Collins and Mr. Kindersley; and Mr. Turner
appeared for the plaintiff.
The cause occupied the whole of the day, and had not con-
cluded at the rising of the Court.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July 8.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Foximmique.)
LORD HUNTINGTOWER'S INSOLVENCY.
Mr. LEWIS applied to his Honour in this case this morning
to name a day for the final order. Twelve months had ex-
pired since the insolvent appeared before the Court, and after
his Honour had read over his notes, he would, perhaps, be
pleased to fix a day for the order prayed.
Mr. Commissioner FoNnuxQuE (who was busily em-
ployed with other business at the moment), said—Take an-
other opportunity to speak to me; to-day or to-morrow, or
when you are here, will do just as well.
Mr. LEIVIS thanked his Honour, and left the Court.
SMITH, MOLT', AND NEALE'S BANKRUPTCY.
The sitting in this case was for the proof of debts, and ad-
journed choice of assignees. The bankrupts were the pro-
prietors, printers, and publishers of the Iron Times, and
carried on their business in Fleet-street. 'We have reported
the former part of the proceedings under this fiat.
The first proof opposed and rejected for the present was a
claim made on behalf of Mr. John Smith, of Birmingham,
for money lent to carry on the paper. The bankrupt Holt was
the only person who could give evidence of the advance, but
as the sum appeared nowhere in the books of the estate, it
was ordered to stand over till a better case could be made out.
Another proof was tendered on an affidavit for Mr C.
W. Burman, of Salop, whose claim, 901., was also fur money
lent.

The bankrupt Holt said this advance was entered in the
books, and the cashier, George Neale, could speak to the re-
ceipt of the money in Wolverhampton notes.
Mr. Lee said this proof was one like many others about to
be brought forward, concocted for the purpose of influencing
the choice of assignees. The Mr. Burman, who it was said
had advanced this money, was the secretary of a company
called " The Circulating Omnibus Company."—(Laughter.)
Instead of being a creditor under the estate, he (Mr. Lee)
should say he was a debtor for a, great number of advertise-
ments having been inserted respecting that company. He
also very much doubted, from what he knew of Mr. Burman,
whether he really was in a condition to lend money.
Mr. Cross (solicitor to several creditors)—And we under-
stand that he is not resident in Shropshire, but in Arundel-
street, in the Strand.
Mr. Lee confirmed this statement. He had called on Mr.
Burman, in Arundel-street, and there was a brass plate on
the door of the house in which he resided.
The bankrupt Holt denied that there was a brass plate on
the door. It was true Mr. Burman occasionally lodged
there ; his proper and continued residence, however, was in
Shropshire. The fact was he (Holt) projected the Circulat-
ing Omnibus Company himself, and prepared an advertise-
ment of a column, which was to be inserted and left as stand-
ing matter to save composition. That, he said, Mr. Lee knew
very well.
Mr. Commissioner FONILANQUE said, as it appeared Mr.
Burman was frequently in the habit of coming to town, it
would be more satisfactory to the Court to see him than ac-
cept his affidavit. The proof must stand over for personal
attendance.
The proof of George Carter Neale, one of the clerks and
cashiers of the Iron Times office, was also ordered to be ad-
journed, some allegations respecting erasures and mutilations
in -the books requiring explanation in connexion with
his claim.
A person of the name of Edwards sought to prove for
1001., as salary for services in the office of secretary to the
Iron Times Company. It appeared that he was engaged by
Holt and other persons not included in the present partner-
ship, and the objection raised of its not being a joint debt, as
far as concerned Holt, Neale, and Smith, was therefore fatal
to the claim.
A bill for the hire of a barouche was also resisted, the debt
being incurred individually by Holt, although it was admitted
that the vehicle was used is the business of the paper and
other railway concerns. The creditor, however, having sued
Holt for the amount, and obtained a judgment against him,
believing him to be the sole responsible party, the Court de•
cided that he could not prove against the joint estate.
This concluded the inquiry into debts.
Upon the question of choice, it was said by the bankrupts'
solicitor, that they offered no one for the appointment.
Mr. Cross, for the creditors, said they proposed for the
office of assignees, Mr. D. Baufer, of Creed-lane, gas-fitter, and
Mr. J. Elkin, reporter. They had signatures to the amount
of 1,0001. in favour of these parties.
The bankrupt Holt—That is very satisfactory. We only
want parties who will be of benefit to the estate. These
people are well calculated for the duty; one is a tradesman,
the. other understands the business of a paper, and its
accounts.
The choice of assignees was made accordingly, and the case
was then adjourned.

SHERIFFS' COURT, July 9.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCLIELL.)
WAKEFIELD AND DINGLEY V. BROWN.
This was an action to recover damages for dilapidations.
The actual plaintiff was a Mr. Bingley, a licensed victualler,
at the King's Arms, Shoreditch. The defendant is a livery-
stable keeper.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Corrie appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Maynard for the defendant.
Mr. CROWDER stated the case. It appeared that in 1826,
Mr. Bing:ey erected extensive stabling, &c., which he leased
in 1830 to a Mrs. Brown, and on her decease in 1840 the
premises fell into the possession of the defendant till 1843,
when the defendant, who considered that if he got rid of the
lease, he also got rid of his liability under the covenants of
the lease; and he therefore assigned it to a person named
Hardwick, who was a mere pauper, and could neither pay
rent or• put the place in repair. The action was therefore
brought to recover for the damage clone during the time the
defendant held the lease, and for which he was clearly liable.
Witnesses were then called for the plaintiffs, whc esti-
mated the damage at about 120/. ; but after a consultation
between the Learned Counsel, it was agreed that a verdict
should be taken for 401.

110BERTS

This was an action to recover the sum of 111. 15s. 4d. on an
attorney's bill.
Mr. 'l'. B. Iftatuns stated the case for the plaintiff. It
appeared that, in 1814, the plaintiff spoke to a Mr. Wood,
who had acted as his attorney, to bring an action on a bill of
exchanue, but as the parties were friends he declined, but, at
the request of defendant, retained the plaintiff to bring an
action in the name of Trapp, as plaintiff did not wish his
own name to appear.
Wood was &led, and swore positively to this fact, At
the present time he was not in practice, as he had not taken
out his certificate. lie admitted that Trapp was a client of
his own. _ _

Mr. THOMAS contended that Wood had employed Roberts
himself, and was paid as the cause went on—that in this case
Roberts did not see Foulkes, and Trapp was his own client,
and set up by him against the defendant in that suit, who
was also his client. He considered this was most dishonour-
able in itself, and ought to throw great doubt on the whole of
the witnesses' evidence.
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF REVIEW, July 8.

Mr. Walpole, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. Rolt took their seats
within the bar, upon their appointment as Queen's counsel.
EX PALTE JOH)? (OR YAKOB) SOLOMON, IN RE soLostaal.
This was a renewed application by the bankrupt to have a
fiat, issued against him on May 27, annulled, on the ground
of its illegality, he being a minor during the period of trad-
ing. Against this it was urged by the assignees that the
minority was an unfounded pretence, and that the bankrupt
had held himself out to be of full age. The business as an
outfitter was carried on at Bristol, and afterwards at Exeter.
ML: BACON, for the petitioner, stated the birth of the
alleged bankrupt took place at Pinchauf, in Poland, on 8 Ab,
5585, in the Jewish calendar (July 23, 1825), and that the
ceremony of circumcision and naming at Ylikob, the son of
Joseph and Getal Solomon, took place on the following Sun•
day, in the synagogue of that town. Affidavits, in support
of this statement, were made by Zena Rothschild, Catherine
Wolfe, Joseph Solomon, and Lazarus Glans. The decision in
" Benton e. Hodges" (9 Bingham), by the late Chief Justice
Tindal, following previous decisions by Lord Eldon and
others, held a commission against infants void.
The CHIEF J talcs said, evidence of infancy was sufficient,
unless the conduct of the bankrupt had been such as to in-
duce the Court to refuse aid for relief from process.
Mr. SWANSTON (with whom was Mr. C. C. Barber) op-
posed the application, on behalf of the assignees. If any
doubt existed, it was hoped the Court would leave the bank-
rupt to his remedy elsewhere. There were discrepancies in
the affidavits, in place, time, and circumstances. He had the
affidavits of various creditors who had known the bankrupt
several years, and who believed him to be at least 25 years of
age. Two other creditors, Mr. Hathaway and Mr. Cousins,
alleged that some considerable time past the bankrupt had
said that he should aVala Isis majority in the course of a few
months. There was also evidence to show that the bank-
rupt had undergone some personal change in order the better
to support his juvenility.
Mr. Samuel Thompson identified the bankrupt. Had known
him two or three years. When last he saw him in Exeter
he had whiskers, and was surprised by his altered appearance
on meeting with him in London. Did not think the whiskers
he had seen were artificial.
and there entered a hair-
of being shaved, when the
whiskers without his miss-
diN)vareeJrebsokaelesirrna,saghSfa
vlhfooeomdrp oNovfnf ,oetrsththetohenlevb.hsapuonnplkerer upro..ofp3s
itie,i3ser x:m ined—Left Exeter three
the extent of them.
i
of being examined as to
tn,ga s themheh
had
dt
then the time,n o
Gave no such directions, and could have had no motive for
ihis age. Could identify the barber if at Weston, but did not
remember his name or address. Had shaved himself since
the loss of his whiskers. The identification of his birthday
was chiefly attributable to its occurrence on a particular day,
which was a black fast, in universal observance. Was mar-
ried in January, 1842, being then little more than 1G years
of age. There is no difference in the ceremony where parties
are minors. In some cases parties marry at the age of 13.
The shaving operation took place three weeks back from the
present day.
The CaW, JUDGE said, he never heard of a sober barber
shaving off a young gentleman's whiskers, for there must be
a risk of being knocked down for damaging perhaps the whole
of what constituted a stock-in-trade.
Mr. SWANSTON urged the inconsistency of treating this
bankrupt as irresponsible, after carrying on business on his
own account for yearQ, occupying a house at a rent of 1501.
per annum, and advertising for 2,000 journeymen tailors.
Mr. BACON replied.
The Cum], JUDGE did not think he ought to annul the fiat
upon the evidence of Mr. HathawilY and Mr. Cousins by
their affidavits filed against the application, but that evidence
was the only circumstance which could have induced him to
take that step. T
-t appeared that there was a pending action,
which would serve the of
purpose.
inquiry; and, being an
action commenced by one of the assignees before the fiat,
might be conveniently adopted.
On Mr. Swanston's application, and an offer to pay the
expectations:tiliin was
difference in the expense, the Court directed the bankrupt to
test his minority and the validity of the fiat by an action
against the assignees, to be tried at Bristol, for illegal seizure
of goods, wearing apparel, and household goods.

EX PARTE BASTARD, IN EE
- .
WISE AND
Mr. MALI (s applied relative to an alterationin an action
pending between the representatives of the Newton and
4ND CO.
Totnes Banks, which was opposed by Mr. Shapter.
The CIIIXF JUDGE declined altering the order at so dis-
tant a date without re-hearing the case. It might be true
that the creditors were agreed, but he was not prepared to
give it judicial formality. The names of creditors selected
by the meeting
pa.* was u2w4e.might be added, as contemplated when the