The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-30 00:00:00

.... ~ ,„,-.,-,,t ..
THE STOURBRIDGE AND BP Spete<
'',J., -•'. AA* 7-, ) A
BANK FAILURE. 7.-, '\' r.p."dh .f...'1"r0. BIRMINGHAM, MoNDA.f.—Tto firf3t pro" ''
'Tr '-,
matter of the blnkruptey of Messrs. 0,•• ' II '- - 04
Wragge commenced here to-day, befor ' eitRAP...- .
__.._' ''' 1.5r7. \.,''
' I sinner Balguy.
Messrs. Celjn and Co., the London banner '• • ourit: ' .2
i presented by Mr. Murray, of Lolielon; 441-1;11../Kena Z.V r"
nely appeared for ti.e Oxford and 'i•Nilliiipla
Railway Company; Mr. Pangeter, of Stourb ' 6
141 )
Mr. Deakin, of Wolverhampton, for various cre a ors;
Messrs. Motteram, Knight, and Co., fur the petitioning
creditors.
After some preliminary discussion, Mr. Knight said
that be had placed proofs on the files of the court
amounting to from 100,000/. to 110,0001., and it' it were
necessary, they could tender proofs to the amount of
40,000/. in addition ; in these circumstances it appeared
to him -that it was the duty of the gentlemen who ap-
peared for other creditors, especially for the Oxford,
Worcester, and 'Wolverhampton Railway, either to prove
up to this amount or to reduce the sum which he on be-
half of his clients had placed cm the tiles.
Mr. Kennedy persi4od in claiming a ri.;;ht to e Xa-
mine all the proofs tendered, ;Ind u-itiomtelv he ,ugges.t.A
,n adjewnuparit; ha; the Llsrned ' Onnual.,,slnuer de-
clined to accede to this. At,otbor objbal'cri taken by
Mr. Kennedy was that a creditor an ono utlitlavit we .10.•
-terited-as a man, and . atterwards as a feulale; Lu.. the
Gerninisskrkfrjcv!:. rtulfd. that c.ho. . ~ •
A!tention witi, neXi called
.to two elairris. 'one c n 4.ii4Jf
of a Maas Durant-for 15,530/, and anotber-c4ibenult of
Miss Mary'Duratit for 15,130/. The ot,kletion'te these
by Mr. CReSl:irt, and Mr.. T.;;;:'r.:itii I.:p that the original
suais had been deposited many years ago, when a M,r:.
Biggi was in the bank with the eidei Mr, ltutford, and •
before Mr. IVragge joined the firm,.nonsequently inquiry
was necessary relative to that proof.
It was stated, in answer, by Mr. Whitmore, the offi-
cial assignee, that the bank had regularly paid tee in-
terest on both sums at the rate of 4 Per cent. ever since
they had been deposited.
Mr. Commissioner Balguy admitted roof of both
,1/4bts; and then Mr. Elgie, on behalf of the Oxford,
Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Company, ap-
plied for an adjournment, in order that there might be
time to consider, and appoint men of character and
standing as assignees.
The Learned Commissioner did not appear to think
there Was much ground for further adjournment; upon
which Mr. Knight named as trade assignees Mr. Dea-
kin, of Stourbridge; Mr. G. Blakeway and Mr. Downing,
also residing near Stourbridge ; and Mr. 0. T. Wil-
liams, of London.
Mr. Smith objected to the last-named, on the ground
that he was clerk in the banking-house of Messrs.
Glyn and Co., whose interests might be antagonistic to
those of the great body of creditors.
Mr. Murray rejoined that Messrs. Glyn and Co. did
not wish to mix up with the squabbles of solicitors about
the choice of assignees; they were, however, desirous of
making the most of the estate, and he thought that the
appointment
of Messrs. Glyn and Co. would be most ad-
vantageous.
Mr. Commissioner Balguy suggested that some other
gentleman should be nominated in the place of Mr. Wil-
liams ; but this appointment being pressed, his Honour
assented.

It was subsequently stated by Mr. Knight that
Messrs. Glyn and Co., were creditors for 25,0001. in
running bills, besides the debts for which they held good
security.
The gentlemen above named were then formally ap-
pointed trade assignees, and debts against the Stour-
bridge bank alone were proved for no less than 160,0001.

PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE.
LIVERPOOL COURT OF PASSAGE, JULY 23.
WELCH V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAIL-
WAY COMPANY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
the value of a package containing 181 b. of cigars, under
the following circumstances:—
The plaintiff drove to the railway station, and was
too late for the train. One of the company's porters
took his luggage into the yard, placed it on the plat-
form, and promised to " have an eye" to it until the
next train started. When the plaintiff returned to go
by the next train, he said that ono of the packages he
had left, that containing cigars, was missing.
It was proved that the value of the cigars was up-
wards of 71. odd; but there was conflicting evidence
whether the package was ever delivered to the porter.
The porter positively swore that he never saw it. It
also came out, on cross•examination of the plaintiff's
witnesses, that there was a depot set apart by the com-
pany for passengers' luggage, on payment of 2d., and
that there was a notice up that the company would not
be responsible for luggage left for the convenience of
passengers unless placed i❑ the depot.
At the close of the plaintiff's case,
Mr. JAMES, on behalf of the defendants, submitted
that there was no case; that the special contract declared
upon was not made out, and, if it had been, that the
porter could not bind the company; and that in fact the
plaintiff had never taken his ticket, and that there was
no contract to carry either him or his luggage.
Mr. ASPINALL, on behalf of the plaintiff; contended
that he had made out a case, and quoted certain cl.-
cisions.

The ASSESSOR said there was clearly no case; that the
porter could not hind the company; that no ticket had
ever been taken; and that the contract was not made out.
Plaintiff was nonsuitc d.

Mr. ASPINALL said it was a shabby thing for the com-
pany to defend the action.

Mr. JAMES said that the reason why the company
had defended the action was, that the plaintiff had de-
manded 24/., nearly four times the value of the cigars;
and that it would never do fur the company to admit
that their common porters could make special contracts
on tneir behalf.