The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-19 00:00:00

MARTIN V. MANGEON.

Mr. Field appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Haw-
kins was counsel for the defendant.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for 1001.
drawn by the defendant on a person named Power.
The defendant pleaded that he had no notice of the
dishonour of the bill by Power.
It appeared that the plaintiff is a plumber and gla-
zier, carrying on his business in Great Brewer-
street, Golden-square, and that he had discounted the
bill in question. Upon the bill arriving at matu-
rity it was duly presented for payment at the London
Union Bank, in Argyle-place, Regent-street. This
was in the month of November, 1847; but the reply
at the bank was "No effects." Thus the bill was
dishonoured. In consequence of this result, the plain-
tiff stated that he had called upon the defendant, and
had verbally communicated to him the fact of the dis •
honour of the bill, when the defendant had stated that
he should be able to obtain the money from the ac-
ceptor, and would do so if the plaintiff would wait for
a few days. Subsequently the plaintiff said he had
made repeated applications for payment to the defen-
dant, butathey had all been unsuccessful.
The defendant, on the other hand, now said that
the bill had become due on a Saturday, and that he
had heard nothing from the plaintiff as to its dishonour
until the following Wednesday or Thursday, upon
which occasion he had told the plaintiff that he should
see the acceptor in a day or two, when he would try
to get the money for the bill from him. At a ;more
recent date the plaintiff had made several applies tions
for the address of the acceptor, but the defendan t al
together denied he had made an applic:4tio❑ to bite, for
the payment of the bill, nor had he ever been called
upon to pay the amount until he had reeeived a letter
from an attorney on the subject on the sth of July in
the present year. _ _

A letter was then put in, dated Sept. 4, 1849, from
the plaintiff to the defendant, in which the firmer• de-
manded the payment of an account for, work which
he had done for the latter, but in which he made no
mention of this bill of exchange.
Some accounts were also put in, but in no once of
then was any reference made to this bill.
Baron MARTIN having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 1001., with 201. for interest.
Mr. Baron MARTIN then said, that this case bad
proved the benefit which could be derived from the
operation of the new law of evidence. That new law
had acted most beneficially in the present case; for
there had been thousands of instances where a Imond
fide holder of a bill of exchange had given a vet bill
' notice to a party of the dishonour of the bill witbc
as in the present instance, his having taken any si it-
, nese with him. Prior to this new law of evidence,
the party not being eligible or admissible as a wit•a ess
himself, had been without the means of giving pr oof
of the dishonour; while here, the plaintiff having bt4en
himself examined, had proved that he had person ally
informed the defendant of the nonpayment of the bill.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 18.
(Before Mr. Commi.sioner HOLROTD.)
IN RE HANSON.

The bankrupt, William Hanson, of Kensington,
statuary, applied for his certificate. His accounts,
January, 1847, showed the following :—Creditors,
1,2971.; capital, 2531.; profits, :1,9801.; debts rs,
good, 335/. ; property, 184/. ; trade expenses, 1,24.81. ;
personal expenses, 722/. ; losses, 891/.
Mr. Lowrance supported the bankrupt, who vitas
unopposed.
His HONOUR granted an immediate certificate, of
the second class.

IN RE JeLEOD.

The bankrupt was described as a merchant of B:E,n-
gal and Ealing.
This was a meeting for the choice of assignees.
The bankrupt had been arrested at the suit of a
creditor of the name of Lepage, and was brouB bt
before the Court in custody.
Mr. DANGERFIELD applied under the 112th seed, on
of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act for the
bankrupt to be discharged, urging that the grouix d;
upon which he had been taken in execution, viz., an
apprehensios. of his leaving the country, were u
founded.

Mr.- Lepage was callQd, and, upon being examine d,
said he believed, if the bankrupt was discharged, he
would go to India, as he would be more likely to o b-
tain employment in that'country than in Englan d.
For many years he had practiced as a pleader in ti se
native courts both of Tirhoot, and Calcutta, and was a
man of education and great talents, and very well read in
the laws of India, and was a good linguist. He kit :d
creditors in India.

The bankrupt, on being examined, denied havizlg
any intention of leaving the country. It was most
certainly his intention to be present at the examito t-
tion meeting. . _

His HONOUR said he saw no objection to this pear( 4n
having his discharge. If he did not surrender on ti
day fixed for his last examination, he would therey
commit a felony, and might be proceeded against i u
India as well as here. Under the circumstances, I e
thought he ought to be discharged.
The bankrupt was then discharged.
IN RE RITHERDON.

The bankrupt, E Ritherdon, ship-builder, of Pop
lar, came up to pass his last examination. His ac -
counts, extending over nineteen months, showed— -
creditors, 3,251/. ; creditors for advances, 9841.. ;
profits, 29/. ; debtors, good and doubtful, 210/. ; pro -
perty, 350/. ; expenses, 1,253/. ; losses) 2,4121.
The examination was adjourned for the bankrup t
to give a statement of his expenditure from April.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

William Griliths Kemp was brought up for furthor
examination before Alderman Lawrence, on th e
charge of uttering a forged cheque for 391.
with intent to defraud the London and Westminster
Bank.

The cheque appeared to have been drawn in th e
name of Palmer, a draper, of Aldgate, and was dated
the 12th of November, 1851, and made payable t o
"Cooke and Co." Mr. Palmer having withdraw a
his account two months previously, and the forge d
signature bearing little or no similarity to his hand -
writing or mode of signing his name, the fraudiwas
detected the moment the cheque was presented. It
was further explained that a burglary had been com-
mitted at Mr. Palmer's house on the night of the 9th
of last June, and that a few days prior to that cir-
cumstance prisoner had been seen hanging about die
premises, but no evidence was offered to substantiate
the latter allegation. The officer said he had made
inquiries, and ascertained that the cheque was from a
book that had been stolen from a Mr. Benda, a toy-
merchant in the City, who had an account at the Lon-
don and 'Westminster Bank.

Alderma❑ L&WRENCE wished to know something
of the prisoner's private character, and directed the
officer to have Mr. Benda iu attendance on Friday
next.—Remanded.
MARYLEBONE.
Mr. Davis, grocer and oilman, 67, Harrow-road,
was yesterday summoned before Mr. Broughton by
the Board of Inland Revenue, charged with hexing
in his possession 190Ibs, of husks of red and white
mustard seed and ground rice, arid also with having
in his possession some pepper adulterated with the
same, and for which he bad rendered himself amen-
able for each offence to a penalty of 1001.
Mr. Latten, supervisor of Inland Revenue, attended
to watch the case on the part of the Crown, and Mr.
M'Carter, the barrister, appeared for the defendant.
Mr. BaOUGHTON said it was a case of serious im-
portance to the defendant as well as the public, and
after giving the subject due consideration he (Mr.
Broughton) had come to the conclusion that the
case had been proved. Under these circumstances,
be felt it his duty to give a judgment ; hut ill con-
sideration of the defendant's previous good character
as an honest tradesman he should only inflict the re-
duced penalty of 25/., being the fourth of the penalty
for the Qua conviction proceeded on.