The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-22 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 2

STEVENS V. BARKER.
(Sittings at Nisi Pries before Mr. Justice PARK.)
This was an action for libel. Both parties were
inhabitants of the parish of Mile-end Town, in which
the most neighbourly feeling did not prevail. On
the 23d of August, 1830, a vestry meeting was
called, at which Mr. Michael Scales, the rejected
candidate for the Aldermanic gown, presided. The
plaintiff, Mr. Stevens, in the absence of the de-
fendant, accused him of brutal conduct towards the
widow of one of the late churchwardens (Mrs.
Orsen). The defendant, in answer to this accusa-
tion, published a handbill, in which he imputed to
the plaintiff his having received the parochial funds
to the amount of .5/. 4s. under false pretences. It
appeared that a Mr. Hodgson, formerly a most re-
spectable shipowner, when the shipping interests de-
clined in this country, was obliged to yield to the
pressure of the times and became a bankrupt; but
such was the respect for his character that his friends
made a subscription and purchased a house for him
at Greenhithe, where their munificent charity afforded
him a competence to cheer the evenings of his
days. The plaintiff, being amongst his earliest
friends, applied to the parish in Mr. Hodgson's
name for relief, which was immediately granted to
the amount of 4s. a week. On a visit to Green-
hithe the churchwardens ascertained Mr. Hodgson
%dchveeiasins invci
eeoddn s
eai
tnlcomfortablesltuw.krapnsrToi
s e
at chi ri
sc name
cs
et
pa tti
ienegs ,
paanr
od on ni a thl
eir
lief
f ex-
pressing
t
e
wwh
iletehdpogl
aueitnohtfiiffist ,wkaannsodwasplaepiddi
eiedf, s
tauonc,hd
wwahgaoas
inres
im-
mediately admitted that he did receive the parochial
relief for Mr. Hodgson, but he kept the fact con-
cealed from him, lest it should hurt his feelings,
and he (plaintiff) always advanced it in a couple of
sovereigns at a time.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 2001.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nor. 2

(Before Mr. Commissioner WILLIAMS.)
ROBERT JOY'S BANKRUPTCY.
A meeting of the creditors of Robert Joy, late
of the Grand Hotel, Covent-garden, was held to-
day, for the further proof of debts, and the declara-
tion of a dividend.
After several debts had been proved, the accounts
were gone into for the purpose of declaring a fur-
ther dividend. It appeared by the balance-sheet
that the total debts of the bankrupt are about
13,0001., and that the bankrupt had when the fist
issued debts due to him amounting to 25,2301., of
which onlywere good, and that 21,2164
were bad and doubtful. The list of debts *due t

THEATRE.

the bankrupt contained the names of p.
residences were unknown, and many were ma
The bankrupt estimated his profits while he bad
been in the Grand Hotel at 31,5004 being at '
the rate of 15 per cent, on the returns, which were

115,3571.
A dividend of ls. Bd. in the pound was declared rl
to-day, and another dividehd will be forthcoming.
A former dividend of ss. in the pound hal been
declared.

(Before Mr. Commissioner HoLRoTD.)
JOHN DAVIS'S BANKRUPTCY.
The creditors under a fiat issued against John ,-
Davis, of Fleet-street, auctioneer and dplitilste;er; r
held their first meeting to-day, for the proof of debts I.
and the choice of assignees. The Court-room was
crowded with creditors and claimants, chiefly coma
posed of persons of the Jewish persuasion.
The debts of the bankrupt are, including his
liabilities, estimated at above 5,0001.
Mr. Henry :ilornan, formerly a performer at the •
Coburg Theatre, appeared to prove for the amount
of three bills of exchange alleged to have been dis-
counted by him; and accepted by the bankrupt.
Mr. POLLOCK, for some or the eteditorsj put va-
rious questions to the claimant. He wished td
know what the bills were for, and what discount
had been paid ? Mr. Sloman—l discounted the
bills, and I think it odd that such questions were
put. They are irrelevant.
Mr. POLLock—Was the discount of five per
cent. per annum, or five per cent. for the three
months the Bill had to run ? Mr. Sloman—Among .
our people (Jews) we have no idea about discount. I
don't see any reason why I should be asked such
questions.
The COMMISSIONER—They are proper. What
evidence have you that you paid money for these
bills ? Have you any books ? Mr. Sloman
No, I never keep books, except an interest book.
I have no other proof to give the Court than the
bills.

The COMMISSIONER—The proof cannot be al-
lowed till you produce better proof that you paid
the money for the bills.
Mr. Sloman—l am in the habit of discounting,
and shall be ruined If I am to be so tricked.
Several proofs of the same kind were rejected.
Various proofs were taken, and assignees were ap-
pointed. The assets will be very small.