The Sun.
London, England, 1856-08-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

Mr. Commissioner Fonbianque was the Commissioner
of the day, but there was no case requiring his atttnd.
ante in court.

IN RE J. TOMLIN.

To-day was appointed for a meeting for proof of debts
and declaration of dividend under the estate of this
bankrupt, described as a shipowner, Lloyd's Rooms,
&c. The balance-sheet, by Messrs. Bader and Mac.
pherson, shows—Dr.---To creditors unsecured, 7,749/.
16a. Bd. ; ditto holding security (the ship Colindar and
freight mortgaged to Mr. Hay), 12,166/. 16s. Cr.—
Cash, 105/. ; property, 78/. ; but after payment of the
court fees and accountant's charges, &c., the balance in
hand is 115/. 7s. 11d, available for a dividend. The
Colindar and freight is valued at 939/,

CITY SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)
MASON V. AVERY,--MARK LANE CUSTOMS.

The plaintiff in this action carries on business at
Fordham Mills, Essex, and defendant is a broker or
agent in Seething-lane.
The action was brought to recover the sum of 4/.28.2d.
for loss sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence of the
non•delive^y of a quantity of linseed, according to con-
tract. The facts of the case were these :—Plaintiff's
son, who generally acted as his agent in the market,
agreed on the 7th March for the purchase of 94
quarters of linseed at, 465. Bd. per quarter, but
that contract was varied by a verbal agree-
ment, and on the 17th Mr. Mason, junr., paid 1/.
on account, and subliequently the remainder on the
25th of /larch, when he received an order for the
delivery of the seed from Merriton's Wharf, but on going
there it was found that the merchant's delivery order had
not been ledged, and consequently he could not obtain
the linseed which he had previously resold to a Mr.
Chaplin three or four days before he (Mason) bad paid
for it, and as he could not deliver it through the above
cause Chaplain repudiated the contract. Mason then
applied to defendant for the return of his money, which
was refused. Mason then got the seed and sold it at a
loss of Bs. per quarter, and incurred other expense which
he now sought to recover.
Mr. Philp, for defendant, contended that plaintiff
could not recover on the ground that the transaction
was void, as the contract was not in writing, as
required by the Statute of Frauds, and if it
were a time bargain, it was also void on that account ;
besides which, he would show that Mason, jun., was in
this case the principal and not the agent, and was there-
fore the proper party to sue.
His Honour had no doubt on the point.

Mr. Mason said that it was not the custom in the
Essex markets to give bought and sold notes, and, be-
sides, this was a cash transaction.
His Honour said it could scarcely be called that, and
as to the custom of the Essex markets it had nothing
to do here. A bill had been brought into Parliament
to repeal a portion of the Statute of Frauds as
far as it required all contracts, above 201., to be in
writing, and it was supported by the Lord-Chancel-
lor and Lord Campbell, but the merchants and
tradesmen strongly opposed it, and it was not car-
ried—they looked upon the system as their charter
and security—but these were not the only points
—the plaintiff ought not to have taken the goods, but
sued for the money and any loss ; the receipt of the goods
appeared to him to be a waiver of the contract. Mr.
Mason said that they had given notice to defendant be-
fore they took the seed. Mr. Philp put in the bought
note of the 7th, which was signed " Thos. Mason" (the
son), Chapel-street, Belgrave-square, and a subsequent
letter from him from the country requesting a short de-
lay in paying the balance, and that the seed might
not be parted with, as he (the son) had sold it to
another party. He (Kr. Philp) therefore contended
that although the note was not acted upon, yet it
showed that Masen, jun., was acting on his own ac-
count. Plaintiff's solicitor said that it was well known
in Mark-lane that the son was the agent of the father.
His Honour said the documents were conclusive, and
he should give judgment for defendant, and would re-
commend the son not to try another action on the case,
for he (his Honour) thought that the breach of con-
tract had been waived.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.--(This Day.)

BOW-STREET.

CHARGE OF POSSESSING STOLEN PROPERTY.—A man
named Alm Pinkerton, the keeper of 40 or 50 common
lodging-houses, wag placed at the bar, on remand,
charged with having in his possession an immense
quantity of property supposed t..) be the proceeds of
various robberies.

The property • was in court, and consisted of shawls,
bundles, dresses, sheets, towels, two large bundles of
silk handkerchiefs, linen, under clothing, and a quan-
tity of jewellery.
The evidence of Sergeant Thomas, of the F division,
was to the effect, that having received information
with respect to the disposal of a quantity of linen,
stolen a few weeks back from a laundress's cart, he
called at 6, Charles-street, where the prisoner lives,
and searched the premises. He found a considerable
quantity of linen, some of which was easily identified
as part of that stolen. Among them were two sheets
originally marked " Charing-cross Hospital" in three
places. The marks had been cut away, and large
patches sewn on. There were also some towels from
which the same mark had been cut away, but they
bore a thread mark which the laundress had made to
distinguish those belonging to different wards. In a
cupboard, of which prisoner had the key, Thomas
found three watches, nine rings, 13 breast pins, and 12
duplicates of watches. In another room he found a
number of pieces of silk, all of an expensive kind,
and a variety of miscellaneous property, to the esti-
mated value of 1001. He seized the whole of the pro-
perty described, and took Pinkerton into custody.
The property belonging to Charing-cross Hospital was
identified by one of the sisters of the institution.
A silk handkerchief was also identified by a gentleman
named Russell, who stated it was taken from his pocket
about twelve months ago.

- .
Inspector Mitchell applied for a further remand.
Mr. Lswis, who appeared for the prisoner, stated it
to be the wish of the prisoner that there should be a
thorough investigation into the charge, because the re-
sult of such a proceeding would show that the property
oame into his possession in a legitimate way. As so small
a quantity had been identified, and as the inquiry would
occupy a considerable time, he hoped bail would be taken
for his appearance. The prisoner was the owner of between
40 and 50 common lodging-houses, making some thou-
sands of beds, the domestic arrangements of the houses
being under the dirention of his wife, and the manner
in which he accounted for the property coming into his
possession was the following :—Of course, these lodging-
housec were frequented by thieves and prostitutes, and
%ghee, this class of persons neglected to pay their rent
the doors of their lodgings were locked, and they were
refused admittance to their rooms. The prisoner had
been for about 17 years the proprietor of houses of this
dwviption, and of course, during that time
tills property, which had been found at various
times under these circumstances, had accumulated.
With respect to the jewellery, the duplicates, pins, and
watches had come into his possession in precisely the
same way. Whenever he had redeemed any of the pro-
perty represented by the duplicates, the greatest caution
had been exercised. Inquiries bad been made with re-
spect to the owners of the property, and eventually
they were only taken nut of pawn to prevent them be-
coming the property of the pawnbroker. The wife of
the prisoner, as he bad before remarked, managed the
domestic arrangements of the houses, and a great quan-
tity of the property found in his residence was there
without his knowledge. Having given every facility to
the police when the search of the premises took place,
being the landlord of so many of these houses, and
having on two occasions saved the lives of policemen, he
trusted that bail would be taken for his appearance.
Mr. Henry positively refused to accept bail, and the
prisoner was remanded until this day week.