The Sun.
London, England, 1851-10-01 00:00:00

CERTIFICATES GRANTED.

J. G. Cassaiine,-iallsb-ury-;;reeSt;;;1, wine mer-
chant, certificate of the second class—J. Cobb, Preston,
Lancashire, innkeeper, certificate of the second class.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

R. Page, J. Page, W. H. Seynoar, L. Seymour, R.
P. Seymour, J. P. Sowerby, and T. Sowerby—D.
Green and T. Constable, King William-street, furnish-
ing ironmongers—J. Bagnall and J. Lees, Birmingham,
druggists—W. Methley, and T. C. Methley, Frith-
street, Soho, and Oxford-street, ironmongers —N.
and J. 0. Macnish and Co.. Manchester, Glasgow,
and Belfast, merchants—J. Shatters and J. Yates, Black-
burn, Lancashire, waste dealers—W. Nicholson, J
Nicholson, and P. Nicholson, Warrington, Lancasthre,f
attorneys—P. Harwood and J. T. Nicholson, Liverpool,
tailors—C. Dickinson and C. Cattell,Stoke-upon-Trent,
Staffordshire, millers—T. Wood and S. Ogden, Oldham,
Lancashire, drapers—J. L. Tennant and S. Ingledew,
Stockton-on-Ties, Durham, ropemakers—L. Clayton; G.
Clayton, and P. Clayton, jun., Unsworth, Heap, and
Manchester, cotton spinners (so far as regards P. Clay-
ton, jun.)—J. H. Seed and W. Green, Warrington, Lan-
cashire, grocers—W. Gibson, E. Heycock, and W. J.
Anson, Leeds, cloth merchants (as far as regards E.
Heyeock)—E. Drury and M. Aspden, Preston, Lanca-
shire, bread and buiscuit makers—W. Fossett and D.
Fossett, Chatham, drapers—E. Higgins and J. E. Hig-
gins, Tranmere, Cheshire, tanners—R. Williams and 'l'.
G. Edwards, Denbigh, attorneys—J. Shaw and J. Mars-
den, Bolton-le-!.ours, Lancashire, builders—H. Williams
and J. Williams, Bristol, builders—H. Higgin and 'l'.
A. Blackburn, Bethnal-green-road, box manufacturers—
W. Birkett and W. Birkett, jun., Liverpool, brokers—
T. Forrest and J. Groves, York, linendrapers--H.
Buckley, E. Hirst, and J. Hoiroyd, Halifax, Yorkshire,
dyers (as far as regards E. Hirst)—S. Cowley, and W.
Cowley, Ashton-under-Lune, Lancashire, builders.
INSOLVENT PETITIONERS.
James Lane, Portsmouth, dealer in tobacco.
Thomas Peat, jun., Southsea.
Joseph Glew, bricklayer, Kingston-upon-Hull.
John Fisher, beer-housekeeper, Kingston-upon-Hull.
William Jacob, Kingston-upon-Hull.
Thos. Ward Davies, Llanelly, Carmarthenshire, printer.
Thomas Davies, Llanelly, Carmarthenshire, auctioneer..
Henry Dawkins, Llanstephan, Carmarthenshire, mason
Henry Hardware, Coventry.
Owen Parry, Llanerchymedd, Anglesey, currier.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
J. Cunningham, Torphin, Edinburgh, grazier, to meet
within Diwell's Sale-rooms, Edinburgh, Oct. 4 and 25,
at twelve.
A Guthrie, Dundee, draper, to meet within the Royal
Hotel, Dundee, Oct. 6 and 28, at one.
D. Baxter, Edinburgh, baker, to meet within Aitken's
Temperance Coff,e-house, Edinburgh, Oct. 3 and 24, at
twelve.
Menzies, Edinburgh, spirit dealer, to meet within
Kennedy's Ship Hotel, Edinburgh, Oct. 6 and 31, at two.
H. Munro, Dingwall, merchant, to meet within the
Caledonian Hotel, Dingwall, Oat. 4 and 23, at twelve.
J. Meekison, Dundee, baker, to meet within the British
Hotel, Dundee, Oct. 6 and 27, at twelve.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
IX SOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Sept. 30,
(Before Mr. Commissioner LAW.)
IN RE HENRY SMITH.
This insolvent, a vocalist, has been several times
Wore the Court, under the Protection Act, and upon
all occasions has been opposed by Mr. Henry Russell,
alio a vocalist and composer, who complained that the
insolvent had invaded his rights by singing his com-
posNons.

Mr. SARGOOD to, day appeared on behalf of Mr.
11. Russell, who was called upon to appear by a some-
what novel means. In July the insolvent applied to
the Court, which then thought that he had not been
in prison a sufficient time. Since then a detainer had
been lodged at the suit of Mr. Sims Reeves, and the
insolvent had obtained leave from the Chief Commis-
sioner to file a new petition under the Ist and 2d
Viet. c. 110, and now sought to get rid of Mr. Russell
by this proceeding.
Mr. Commissioner LAW said he should not allow
any such thing. The insolvent had a right to petition
against any new creditors if he got into custody at
their suit, before his former proceeding reached its
termination, but he had no right to hash up two pro-
ceedings together.
Mr. SARGOOD said he objected to any adjudication
upon the new petition affecting the interest of his
client.
Mr Commissioner LAw thought upon that simple
point that Mr. Russell's name ought not to be in the
schedule at all.
Mr. COOKE, on behalf of the insolvent, urged that
debts had been incurred since the filing of the first
petition, from which a final order would not dis-
charge, and on account of which there was a new
detaining creditor, and therefore, he submitted, the
insolvent was entitled to present a new petition,
under the Ist and 2d Victoria, c. 110, and in so
doing was bound to insert in his schedule all his
debts and the claims against him. The fact of being
under an adjournment sine die of a previous protec-
tion petition would not affect the second petition, as
in the case of an adjournment of the last examination
in bankruptcy sine die, where this Court always en-
tertained the petition of a prisoner who could not get
out of custody without its aid. The insolvent being
before the Court, he, under the authority of the law,
was entitled to ail the benefits of the statute, and was
entitled to be heard as if it were a new case, and the
former proceedings were not to be considered in any
respect.
COMMISSIONER—Supposing that Mr. Russell or any
of the old creditors did not oppose now, then am I to
adjudicate and give a warrant of discharge against
those creditors upon this petition ?
Mr. COOKE presumed so.
COMMISSIONER—Then upon filing a new petition
upon the pressure of new debts, the former proceed.
ings is to go for nothing, and creditors must come
and prove their cases over again.
Mr. COOKE observed that, the Court had!' power
to take the evidence given upon the former proceed-
ings as part of the present case, if it pleased, although
he should contend it ought not, and that the creditor
was bound to come and prove his complaint again.
Mr. Commissioner LAW said he should not look at
the schedule while it contained the names of any of
the old creditors as parties against whom the insolvent
sought relief. Two cases could not be blended. Sup.
posing there were any property, it would belong ab-
solutely to the creditors of the first schedule, and those
upon the new petition would have no claim whatever
to it, their debts having been contracted since the first
petition. It was quite fit that the existence of a for-
mer insolvency not terminated should not disable a
man who had contracted subsequent debts, and who
was detained in custody on account of them from ap.
plying to be discharged as to those debts, and as a part
of his history he must state that there was another
pending petition upon which other parties were cre-
ditors, but not such creditors as the Court would act
tn.out tl)if
etbiteheerrefdoirteorrs aiugatibnest
eludposnebtehdeulesecmonudst
bpeetiptiuo
the present one, and then he would adjudicate
upon it.

Mr. booRE said he was quite unprepared on the
part of the insolvent to alter the schedule upon the
present occasion. Would the Court dismiss the first
petition ?
Mr. Commissioner LAW declined to do any such
thing.
Mr. COOKE submitted that such a course bad been
Commissioner
then
adjourned
adopted in other courts.
LAW,oilrhnoevjegveenr,erraelfluyseadndtot
hdeo
TMhre. cse was
in-
solvent returned to prison.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS Sept. 30.
(Before Mr. Winlitsr, Chairman, and a Bench of
Magistrates, at Clerkenweli.)
Patrick Lavine, 25, was indicted, charged with
having feloniously assaulted David Jones, one of the
police force, when in the execution of his duty, with
the intent of preventing his own lawful apprehen-
sion. The prisoner was also further charged with
having inflicted grievous bodily harm upon the said
David Jones, and then with a common assault.
It appeared that an early hour on the morning of