The Sun.
London, England, 1848-10-19 00:00:00

IN RE PELCII.

The bankrupt, a discount broker, came up to pass
his last examination.

The solicitor to the assignees applied that the case
be adjourned in order to examine Messrs. Bailey and
Co., the bankers at Monmouth, with whom the bank-
rupt had had large transactions.
His HONOUR granted the application.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, Oct. 18.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAms.)
GHISLIN V. DZEN.

This action, which was reported a few days back
under the head of the " Sheriffs' Court," came before
Mr. Justice Williams, on Tuesday afternoon, on a
question of some importance to tradesmen. The
plaintiff, as proprietor of the Satirist newspaper, sued
the defendant, a tailor, in Oxford-street, for 6/. ss.
for advertisements. It was complained that the ac-
tion should have been brought in one of the superior
courts, where the costs would considerably exceed
the debt, and a summons was taken out to deprive
the plaintiff of his costs. The parties attended before
Mr. Justice Williams, and it was urged that if such an
action was allowed, the County Courts Act would be
a nugatory enactment.
On the other side it was contended that the publi-
cation was printed in the City, although published
within the district of the Westminster County Court,
and therefore the County Court Act could not apply.
The Learned JUDGE ordered the debt (61. as.) to
be paid within five days, and stayed all further pro-
ceedings until next term.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION--ROUSE.

William Trewbridge was brought up for final ex-
amination upon the charge of hawing stolen a port-
manteau eontaining-paletots, vestings, and other goods,
the property of Messrs. Nicoll, drapers and tailors in
the City, on the Eastern Counties Railroad.
Mr. Cross, traveller to the prosecutors, returned
from Ipswich to London on the 30th of September.
Having deposited the portmanteau in the van train,
at the former place, upon his arrival at the Shoreditch
terminus he looked for the portmanteau, but it was
not to be found. Haydon, Story, and Webb, of the
City police, were immediately employed to investigate
the robbery, and they ascertained in their own pecu-
liar way, that the prisoner, who had been frequently
observed on the platform at the Shoreditch terminus,
had recently sold pieces of goods answering the de-
scription of the stolen property, in different parts of
the town, at prices far below their wholesale value.
They also learned that he had, upon finding that in-
quiry was made after him, suddenly abandoned his
old lodging, and taken up his quarters at a public-
house at a great distance, and they succeeded in
getting possession of several of the articles, which he
had disposed of upon the terms described, and which
proved to be part of the goods of which Mr. Cross had
been robbed.
The persons to whom the prisoners had sold the
articles believed to be the property of Messrs. Nicoll,
proved that he had called upon them soon after the
day on which the robbery had been committed, and
offered it for sale, and that he had also offered to their
choice some coats with pockets of an entirely new
construction, the invention of the firm, which, how-
ever, they did not make.
These witnesses, who were closely questioned by
the prisoner, stated, in answer to him, that they had
known him as a dealer in cloth for some time, and
had been customers to him. _ _

Kinnerley, an Eastern Counties officer, stated that
he had often seen the prisoner on the platform of the
terminus when trains were coming in and going out,
but never had seen him go into a carriage. He re-
collected having observed the prisoner on the platform
about the time the robbery was committed.
Story (City police), upon apprehending the pri-
soner, told him for what offence, and the prisoner,
who had mentioned to the customers alluded to that
the clothes had been brought over from Boulogne and
seized, and sold to him at- a Custom-house sale, stated
that a man had given him the coats to dispose of, and
he had purchased the vestings in Petticoat-lane. The
witness had seen the prisoner at Guildhall Police-court
six month! ago upon a charge of felony, but the bill
against him had been ignored.
The prisoner, who showed complete self-possession
during the examination, remarked to the Lord Mayor,
that the evidence as to the identity of the articles
was by no means conclusive, and that no portman-
teau at all was produced, although he was dis-

tinetly charged with having stolen that as well as
the clothes.

The LORD MAYOR—Do you wish to say any-
thing more ? The prisoner—Why, no, my Lord.
I see you are determined to send me for trial, and
so there can be no use arguing.—Committed for

Isidore Lipman, a German Jew, was brought up
on a charge of having forged the acceptance to a bill
of exchange for 101. The case was an odd one.
Solomon Marks, a tradesman in the City, had a
dealing with a person named Kracow, who paid him
with a bill purporting to be the acceptance of Julius
Lipman, the brother of the prisoner. When the bill
became due Mr. Marks presented it at No. 82, Mark-
lane, the offices of Mr. Julius Lipman, where it was
made payable. lle there saw the prisoner, who in
the course of conversation told him that there were
no orders left for the payment of the bill, and that the
acceptance was written by him (the prisoner) and
not by his brother Julius. Mr. Marks stated that he
afterwards had an interview with Julius Lipman, who
positively asserted that he had not authorised his
brother to sign his name to the bill; that he believed
the signature was in the handwriting of his brother,
who of course must be responsible for the act. The
witness further stated, that several persons were pre-
sent when Julius Lipman denied that he had autho-
rised the prisoner to accept the bill in his name.
The Solicitor for the prisoner said that Mr. Julius
Lipman was in the neighbourhood, ready to come
forward to prove that he had authorised the prisoner
to accept the bill.—(Laughter.)
The Loan MAYOR—Then Julius Lipman had bet-
ter pay the bill at once to Mr. Marks, as the bill was
his if his brother was authorised by him.
After some time Julius Lipman made his appear-
ance, and was examined.—lle said he had given his
brother Isidore authority to sign bills in his absence.
He did not specially authorise the prisoner to accept
the bill in question ; but the bill was included in the
general authorisation. He did not tell Marks that he
had not authorised the prisoner to sign the acceptance.
All he had said was, that the bill had been accepted
without his knowledge.
Marks solemnly repeated his statement.
The LORD MAYOR—I cannot detain the prisoner
after the statement made upon oath by his brother.
You may prosecute the brother, if you choose, for
perjury.