The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-07 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY COURT, JAN. 5.

IN THE MATTER OF SYKES AND CO., BANKRUPTS

On Saturday Commissioners MuttvALE, FON-
BLANQUE, and HOLIWYD, sat together, in order to
decide a most important claim against the estate of
Messrs. Sykes and Co.' bankrupts, who were even-
sive bankers, and failed in the celebrated year 1825
They stopped payment on the 14th of December,
and the fiat of bankruptcy was issued against them
on the 30th of the same month.

Mr. CHING said he appeared on the part of Messrs.
Hodges and Co., the extensive stock-brokers, who
claimed the sum of 8411. from the estate of the
bankrupts. A month before their failure they di-
rected Messrs. Hodges to purchase for them
20,0001 of stock, which was to be transferred to
them in January, 1826. Before January arrived
Messrs. Sykes and Co. failed. Messrs. Hodges
were then compelled to transfer the stock to other
parties, and as the prices were reduced they incurred
a loss which, with the charge for brokerage,
amounted to 811/. This sum they considered
they were entitled to from the estate of the bank-
rupts, as the 6th George 11., known as the Stock-
jobber's Act, enacted, that when the original con-
tractor for any amount of stock was unable to
fulfil his contract at the stipulated time, the party
who held the stock should be entitled to transfer it
to another party, and that whatever loss was oc-
casioned by the failure of the original contractor
to fulfil his contract should be claimed of him.
Mr. Ching then called witnesses to prove that the
bankrupts had negotiated with Messrs. Hodges for
the purchase of stock; that Messrs. Hodges had
purchased 20,0001. of Stock Consols for 16,7001.,
and that they sold the same to Mr. G, eenway for
1.5,9501. This made a dead loss of 7501., and,
added to the usual charge for brokerage, aug-
mented the claim to 811/.

Mr. RICHARDS appeared on the part of the assig-
nees to re-ist the claim, to which he made two ob-
jee.ions—first, that Messrs. Hodges and Co. had
thought proper to resell the stock without giving
the slightest intimation to Messrs. Sykes and Co.,
nr their assignees, by which course they had taken
all the responsibility for loss or damage in their own
hands; and, 2dly, that the transaction was a time
ba,gditi bet we,n she parties, which, by the 6 h sec-
tion of the 6th George 11., was illegal. With re-
gard to selling out without authority, and claiming
the difference, he should he apt to think that, hail
the price of stock risen, and Messrs. Hodges been
likely to get art increase of profit instead of loss,
the bankrupts would not have been troubled with
the matter. He then contended that the transaction
was clearly a time-bargain, and that the purchase
had not been finally agreed on by the bankrupts.

Mr. CHING, in his reply, said that the transac-
tion was indeed a time-bargain, inasmuch as it was
a purchase made of stock at one time, which it was
agreed should be delivered at another time; in this
sense, however, all bargains %sere time-bargains. As
to not having given notice to the bankrupts of the
intended re-sale, it must be considered that the Act
made no mention of such a course.

The COMMISSIONERS, after a long consul,ation,
decided that the claim conid not be allowed. They
agreed with the view of the case taken by Mr. Rich-
ards. After some further argument, they declared
that the claim must be dismissed with costs.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, JAN. 5.

The determination of the Middlesex Magistrates
to expedite the criminal business of the county by
trying a great portion of those cases (not being ca-
pital)which have hitherto been sent to the Old
Briley, has given rise to a question which involves
a point of considerable interest as regards the re-
spective extent of the jurisdiction of the Middlesex
Magistrates, and that of the Judges and Law Offi-
cers appointed to try the prisoners at the Old
Bailey. With the view of bringing certain prisoners
who had been committed to Newgare within the
power of the Middlesex Court, the Chairman, G.
W. MARRIOTT, Esq., issued on Friday several orders,
directed to Mr. Wontner, the Governor of New-
gate, commanding him to dell er up certain pri-
soners named therein. These orders were all unhe-
sitatingly complied with. as was also one sent on
Saturday morning, calling for the delivery of John
Clark ; but, on a sub:equent order being sent fur
the delivery of Thomas Rawlings, instead of
sending the prisoner, Mr. Wontrier came down to
the Sessions himself, and addressing the Chairman,
observed that having received strong marks of cen-
sure from the Judges presiding at the Old Bailey
for his compliance with the former order, he deemed
it proper to submit the last to them, and to request
them advice as to the course he was to pursue. The
three Judges were unanimous in ordering him not
to obey it, they considering that the terms of their
commis ion required that the gaol of Newgate
should be cleared by the Law-officers named therein.
Mr. Allen, the Deputy Clerk of the Peace, said
the man had been committed by the Magistrate for
trial at these Sessions.

Wontner—and the depositions have qeen re-
turned to the Old Bailey, and are now in the hands
of the Judges. The prisoner is also included in the
printed calendar of prisoners for trial there.
Mr. Allen—l don't know how this has happened.
The committing Magistrate his included this man
in the list he sent me of prisoners he had committed
for trial in this Court, and I, therefore, finding he
was in Newgate, made an order for his removal,
which you, Sir (addressing the Chairman), signed.
CHAIRMAN--There is another order I have signed
for the delivery of Michael Grady, against whom
an indictment is returned into this Court. I
should wish to know what is the intention of the
Judges in that case.
Mr. Wontriet—l have sent him down here by
the express orders of the Judges. He was sent to
me on a capital charge of rape, and has been tried
and atvitted ; but was detained by the Judges, in
older to his transmission to this Court to be tried
for the misdemeanour.

The conversation here terminated, and Mr. Wont-
ner withdrew.

Should the decision of the Judges be correct it
will be necessary that the committing Magistrate
shall, in all cases which he wishes should be tried at
the Middlesex Sessions, commit to the New Prison
instead of to Newgate.
The consequence of this will be that the county
will be saddled with the expense of the maintenance
of a number of additional prisoners in the interval
between commitment and trial, for the county con-