The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-11 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

TELFIIR V. HOLMER.
In this case Mr. Martin and Mr. Bramwell appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Humphrey for the defendant.
This was an action to recover the value of certain
goods seized by the Sheriff of Middlesex, under an exe-
cution against a Mr. Smith. The plaintiff, who married
Smith's daughter, claimed the goods as his property, al-
leging that they' had been given to his wife.
On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. S. Smith was called,
and examined with reference to his marriage with Mrs.
Smith. He said that he was not married, and that the
subject was at this time pending before another tribunal,
where the whole question would be fully discussed.
LORD CHIEF BARON—The matter is naw before this
court, and you are bound to state your knowledge of the
fact: to us.
Witness—l must decline to answer any questions upon
the subject.
LORD CHIEF BARON—YOU must answer the question.
Was there, or was there not, any marriage or ceremony
of marriage between you and Mrs. Smith?—Witness
(with great vehemence) - T here was a rreof ceremony.
LORD CHIEF BARON--11here?-IVlthess—ln Edin-
burgh.
vvLittiiiaesps—ClHlaEmF
stßirAeßlOeNan—noNtVtletallt. part of Edinburgh ?
LORD CHIEF BARON—When did it take place ? Wit-
ness—lt was about seven years 2go.
LORD CHIEF BARON-- ho was present at the time ?
Witiiess—Nobi.dy, as I know of.
LORD CHIEF BARON'--Was anybody present besides
you and Mr. Smith? Witne:s—litere was another
person
e, :n ypar ne so
et
hner tpmetrslond.on't know her; and there was, I
LORD CHIZT BARON—What was the naturg, of the
m
? witoes,—lt was a ceremony whTch I did
not consider as a marriage.
LORD CHIEF BARON—What was said or done? Wit-
nes
s—l recollect very'little about the affair.
LORD CHIEF BARON—YOU must state to the jury what
took place. Witness—Why, we agreed to live together,
that is all.
LORD CHIEF BARON —You agreed to live together as
man and wife ? ittiess--
LORD CHIEF BARON —Then
Th es.
theo n that is a legal marriage
in Edinburgh. It i 5 in my
affair is a between pipnaiorrti,ecs.lealr thatsup suppose, 111 r.
juggle.
Martin, you will not persevere any ldoinrgeceridn ythoeur
jury to
Mr. MARTIN—No, my Lord.
The LORD CHIEF BARON then directed
return a verdict for the defendant.

BANKRUPTCY_:-(THIS DAY.)

IN RE THE TRING, READING, AND BASINGSTOKE RAIL-

WAY COMPANY.

To-day was appointed for the last examination of the
bankrupts representing the company.
Mr. Graham, the official assignee. applied to the
Learned Commissioner for an order fur the transfer of
the sum of 12,4001., standing in the names of Mess..-s. Hill
and Everitt, solicitors to the company, in the Union Com-
mercial Bank, should be transferred to the Bank of
England.
Mr. JAMES, who appeared for the directors, objected.
Ile said, that Mr. Graham had obtainrd an injunctirn
over the property, and it was not in the power of the
Learned Commissioner to make any such order.
Mr. LAWRENCE. solicitor to the assignees, considered
that the functions of this Court had been superseded by
the bill tiled in Chancery, unless the bankruptcy was
superseded, which could be done on the creditors re-
ceiving 20s. in the pound. The debts were not much
more than 4,0001., and the cash in hand 12,4(.0/. ; it
would, therefore, save considerable expense if this was
done, as the proceedings in Chancery would then drop.
Mr. JAMES said that Mr. Graham, as the official as•
signee, had no right to receive more than would pay the
expenses and the creditors 20. i. in the pound.
Mr. GRAUAI'i said. as lung as he was official assignee,
he was entitled to receivr ail moneys belonging to the
bankrupts.
It was then urged both by Mr. Lawrence and Mr.
;James, that if Mr. Graham received more than twenty
shillings in the pound, he would be placed in great diffi-
culty as to how to apply the surplus, as there were dif-
ferent equities amongst the shaieholders.
Mr. LAWRENCE said this Court was not in a position
to remove the money, which was at present virtually
under th, jurisdieti,n of the Court or 0-ine( ry.
Mr. JAMES said Mr. Grai;ain assumed that the moneys
belonged to the bankrupt, but there was no proof of that
b,:ng the fact, it stood in the name of Messrs. Hill and
Everitt.

The Learned COM3IISSIONER ultimately held that he
had no power to order the removal of the funds, or he
would have done so, hut his power, under the 18th section
of the Act only applied to property in the hands of the
treasurer, otheets, attorney, solicitor, or agent.
Mr. JAMES laid, w:1;:n th crediLors were paid in full,
the injunction would be dissolved, and matters restored
to their original state, lie said that the real struggle