The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-24 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

WILLIAMS AND ANOTHER V. SMITH.

This was an action on three bills of exchange,
which purported to be accepted by the defendant.
The first was 4081., the second 3001., and the third
581. Sir JAMES SCARLETT stated that the plain-
tiffs were wine and spirit merchants, and the bills
were paid to them as a security for debts due from
Frisby and Gatefield, who had carried on the wine
trade in the city of London.
The Jury, after hearing Counsel on both sides,
found a verdict for the defendant.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE closed the sittings
after Michaelmas Term.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 23.

Sittings at Guildhall, before the CHIEF JUSTICE and a
Special Jury.)
stAcKENztE V. SIACLEOD.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Lady
Mackenzie, against Colonel Macleod, the defendant,
to recover compensation in damages for the loss of
a house and furniture by fire, alleged to have oc-
curred through the negligence of the defendant's
servant.

The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
F.LKINS V. SCOTT AND CO.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a
respectable solicitor, against the defendants, Sir C.
Scott and Co., bankers, to recover compensation
for the injury sustained by the plaintiff in refusing
to pay his check, when they (the defendants) had
sufficient assets in their hands to do so.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE, in stating the plaintiff's
case, said that his client was a most respectable
solicitor, and had been in partnership with his father,
Mr. John Elkins, anti his brother, Mr. Morrison
Elkins. Some differences having arisen there was
a dissolution of partnership, when it was agreed that
each person was to retain what money he had of
their clients in hand. Mr. John Elkins, the father,
and Mr. Morrison Elkins continued in partnership,
while Mr. Edward Elkins commenced business for

himself. Shortly after he (plaintiff) received a
check for 1,0001. from a Mr. Brooks, the amount of
which he lodged in the bank of the defendants.
When Mr. Brooks sent the check he requested of
Mr. Edward Elkins to deduct his costs, pay some
bills, and remit him the balance to France, where
he was then living. The business for which the
costs were due was done in the partnership concern.
The plaintiff accordingly followed the directions of
Mr. Brooks, and drew a check for the balance,
500/., which was refused payment. Nothing could
equal the astonishment of the plaintiff at finding his
cheek refused, as at that time the bankers had funds
in their hands far above that sum. The injury his
client sustained was not only an injury to his credit
but to his character. He therefore felt confident

that the Jury would give that compensation which,
as a public example, they ought to give.
The Learned Sergeant then called witnesses,
after which

Mr. Sergeant JONES replied for the defendants.
and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—
Damages 15/.
The Court adjourned to the next Term.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DEC. 23.

JACOB V. lIUMPIIERY AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff
against the defendants, late Sheriffs of London, to
recover the sum of 1401. for neglect of duty.
Mr. ERLE, for the plaintiff, said, the plaintiff had
brought an action against a person of the name of
Alvin for the amount of a debt. The Jury found
a verdict for 141/. ss. A writ of execution was
issued, and it was placed in the hands of a bailiff
of the name of \Vallbank, who proceeded and made
a seizure for the above amount. On the return of
the writ, which was on May 22, plaintiff made an
application for the money—when the Sheriffs said
they had the goods in their possession; but for
want of a purchaser they could not sell. The
plaintiff then issued a writ to compel the Sheriff to
sell; but although this was done, no sale took place.
Since then it was discovered that an arrangement
bad been entered into by the bailiff with the de-
fendants, and the goods were returned to Alvin,
who since that period had become insolvent. An
offer had, subsequently, seen made to the plaintiff,
in shape of a compensation, but it was less than
what had been endorsed on the writ, and therefore
refused. All that the plaintiff wanted was a fair
and full compensation, but he should advise him
not to take a farthing less.

After evidence had been adduced, and Mr. Ser-
geant TALFOURD had addressed the Jury for the de-
fendants,
The Jury, under the Learned Judge's direction,
found a verdict for the plaintiff for 1461. 65., being
the amount and interest of the debt.
Leave was given to the defendants to move the,
Court fora nonsuit,

Mr. GORDON said he had to apply to the Court
for its direction in a matter of some importance to
the creditors. When the new system of bankrupt
law commenced the creditors' assignees were desi-
rous that no official assignee should be appointed on
the estate, but they, as well as the creditors, bowed
to the opinion of the Court that such appointment
ought to be made. He, on the part of the creditors,
now wished to have the opinion of the Court whe-
ther any per centage should be paid to the official
assignee for moneys realized by the creditors' as-
signees, and placed in the hands of the official
assignee when his appointment took place. He (Mr.
Gordon) should humbly submit that the estate
should not be charged with any expenses upon the.
money so paid over in the first instance to the ofh-
cial assignee, amounting to 21,0001.
The COMMISSIONER said that by the appointment
of the official assignee the estate was saved a great
deal of expense, and that officer must be remunerated
for his trouble ; and he felt confident that the public
had saved thousands by the appointment of official
assignees. He was bound to say that, in this case,
the creditors' assignees had acted very fairly; but
that was not always the case, and thousands upon
thousands had been lost to the creditors in conse-
quence of the want of check now afforded by the
°dicer referred to. The greatest possible benefits
had resulted from the appointments, which were
part of a general system that had hitherto worked
well.

Mr. GORDON asked if there was any fixed rule
for_ the allowance of commis ion ?

Mr. C9mmissioner EVANS said there was no fixed
rule. He generally allowed 2i per cent. upon all
old commissions. He had before said that creditors
bad been greatly benefited by the appointment of
official assignees, but it was his wish that all credi-
tors' assignees should themselves be active. He
was desirous to afford every check in his power.

THE BANK OF ENGLAND'S CLAIM.
The subject of the claim made by the Directors
of the Bank of England for forgeries committed in
the transfer of Stock, to the amount of 250,000/,,
having been alluded to,
The COMMISSIONER asked if the matter still stood
over for the judgment of the House of Lords?' This
was a question of great importance, as at least
100,0001. in solid money depended upon it.
Mr. GORDON stated the claim by the Bank stood
over for the decision of the House of Lords.
It was remarked in Court that there are now in
the hands of Messrs. Coutts and Co. a sum of
95,559/. Bs. Id., to abide the decision of the Peers
on this claim.

The proofs made to•day were not large, but in-
cluding them, together with the claim of the Direc-
tors of the Bank of England, there are on the pro-
ceedings debts to the amount of 785,7891., which,
added to the claim of 7,8221., make a total of debts
and liabilities against the joint estate of the bank-
rupts of about 790,0001.

•A
further dividend of .sd. in the pound, was
declared to-day on the proofs against the joint estate,
in addition to former dividends, amounting to Bs.
4d. in the pound. The dividends paid on Mr.
Stracey and Mr. Graham's estates amount to 20s.
in the pound, and on that of Mr. Marsh 1.55. in the
pound. On Mr. Fauntleroy's estate very little will
be divided.