The Sun.
London, England, 1851-12-23 00:00:00

TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 231 1851.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 22.
(Sittings at Nisi Priu3, before Mr. Baron MARTIN
and a Special Jury, at Guildhall.)
KELLER V. MORLEY.

Mr. Humfrey, Mr. Warren, and Mr. Bovill were
counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Knowles and Mr.
Hayes appeared for the defendants.
The plaintiff is a silk merchant and reeler residing
at Milan, and the defendants are silk manufacturers at
Nottingham, against whom this action was brought to
recover a balance of 1,2501., with interest, arising from
the execution of a large order given by them to the
plaintiff for the purchase and reeling of 25 bales of
white and yellow silk in January, 1850. The de-
fendants pleaded payment, and the main question be-
tween them and the plaintiff was, whether the order
had been unfettered as to price, or whether, having
been so given in the first instance, the defendants
had afterwards prohibited the plaintiff from purchas-
ing the cocoons at a price exceeding that charged by
him in the preceding year. These points depended
upon a ♦ery voluminous correspondence, which we
may be excused from entering upon. It may suffice,
therefore, to say tha► the jury, after a brief delihera-
tion, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full
amount of his demand.

The verdict was taken for 1,3191.
TRUMPLER V. LOCKETT.

Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Knowles, and Mr. i'hipson,
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. M. Chambers, Mr.
Maynard, and another learned gentleman,were counsel
for the defendants.

In 1847 the plaintiffs purchased a quantity of or-
chills weed, whence is extracted a splendid crimson
dye, and shipped at Callao for Liverpool 349 bales in
the Helena, a vessel belonging to the defendants, the
residue of her cargo being guano, which, for the
purposes of this cause, may be stated to have belonged
to the defendants also. 200 other bags of the same
weed were shipped in the Thomas King, which,
though she sustained bad weather, shipping seas
among the orchilla weed, and thereby damaging it,
eventually arrived at Pndstow, whence her cargo was
conveyed in another vessel to London, and there sold
as a damaged article at prices varying from 151. to
301. per ton. The Helena also met with very bad
weather, and after the orchilla weed had suffered con-
siderable damage from the mixture of salt water and
the ammoniacal matter in the guano, the whole of it
was thrown overboard, in the hope of saving the
vessel and residue of her cargo. This hope was
realized, and the Helena having arrived safely
with the guano the plaintiffs made their
claim for contribution from the defendants
on a general average. The defendants as-
sented to the claim, but estimated the orchilla weed
at the value which it would have borne at the port of
discharge, if it had not been thrown over, and, de-
ducting freight and charges, their average-stater
brought out a sum of 911. The plaintiffs, however,
contended that they were entitled, in calculating the
general average, to take the orchilla weed at its full
value when shipped or just before the jettison took
place. By this calculation their claim amounted to
1,1471., for which sum this action was brought; and,
the defendants having paid 911. into court, the ques-
tions now raised were simply the point of time at
which the calculation for the payment on a general
average should be made, and the value of the orchilla
weed at that particular point. On these matters
lengthened evidence was gone into on both sides. The
plaintiffs proved the price at which the cargo of the
Thomas King was sold, and called upon the jury to
infer that the cargo of the Helena would have fetched
the same price. The defendants, on the other hand,
called the crew of the Helena to show that the orchilla
weed was so damaged before they threw it over, that
had a different course been successfully adopted, it
would have been utterly worthless on its arrival at
the port of discharge, and they proceeded to lay be-
fore the jury the basis of the calculation on which the
sum paid into conrt was made.
Sir F. THESIGER having replied,
Mr. Baron MARTIN left it to the jury to say whe-
ther the sum paid into court by the defendants was
sufficient to cover their admitted liability to contri-
bute to the general average.
The jury, after consultation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for 931. ls. Bd. over and above the 911.
paid into court.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 22.
(Before Mr. Commissioner EVANS.)
IN RE CHEETHAM AND GILL.

The bankrupts were described as shipwrights, of
Strood. This was the last examination meeting.
The accounts showed 1,359/. due to creditors. The
assets consisted of, good debts, 896/. ; property, 384/. ;
the profits were, 9451. (over a period of twenty-two
months); trade expenses, 386/ ; interest, 2661.;
drawings out by Cheetbam, 253/. ; by Gill, 214/. ;
losses, 4421.
Mr. Linklater supported the bankrupts; Mr. Lucas
represented a creditor.
Mr. ConarTos, for the assignees, did not oppose,
but required the balance-sheet to be amended in re-
ference to some bills of exchange, the acceptances of
which in the bankrupts' names they represented to
be forgeries. It was alleged they had been accepted
without authority by a person who had been com-
mitted at Rochester on the charge, and was now out
on bail.

His HONOUR doubted whether he could pass the
bankrupts under those circumstances; and, after con-
sulting Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, be decided to
adjourn the case till after the Maidstone assizes.

IN BE IIUCILLAND.

The bankrupt, J. Bucklond, was a wine-merchant,
Queenhithe. This was the last examination meeting.
The accounts showed—Creditors, 1,1691.,; assets, 1501.
The bankrupt passed.

BRISTOL BANKRUPTCY COURT, Dec. 22.
AND
DANYES.
(Before CommissioneGrLkAmlro.itSGekrgNeaßnitliSKTEß7
THE MON MO
JONES
SA PHILIPEN
This was a meeting for the choice of assignees
under the fiat. The alleged liabilities are very
heavy; and, from the connexion of the bankrupt
with Glamorganshire Joint
Stock
Western Circuit, and Mr. W.
appeared for the petitioning creditor;
of London, for the London Joint-Stock
t Bank,hStone,
the
ofcasetil e Monmouthshire
excited
and
much interest.
i‘ i r .
e
`lr.
Bevan,t solicitor,
Bank ; Mr. Fox, of the firm of Protheroe, Toogood,
and Protheroe, for the Monmouthshire and Glamor-
ganshire Bank; and Mr. Charles Bevan and Mr.
Overton, for other creditors.
Mr. TthsoN having tendered a proof for 14,0001.,
Mr. STONE objected that the proof was on various
promissory notes drawn by the bankrupt, and ac-
into the bank, and had got mixed up
cepted by other parties, and which in some manner
found their way
with the account with the bankrupt, and for which
the bank held securities to a great extent. He sub-
mitted that they had no right to pick out those notes
from the general account and prove on them, they
holding securities for the balance of their claim. He
was instructed that the bankrupt had held between
4,000 and 5,000 shares in the bank, which were held
as security. Mr. Frazer, the manager of the bank,
was now prosent, and he should like to ask him where
were the certificates for those shares ?
Mr. Frazer—The bankrupt never had any.
Mr. STONE said, of course not. The bankrupt had
received the dividends, and yet the bank held the
securities. It was clear the bank claimed a lien on
them, and that they were entitled to hold them till
the calls were paid, and also as security for the general
balance. _ _

Mr. Tu.soN had deemed that no objection could be
urged against the proof. He had tried to steer clear
of objections and difficulties which he foresaw would
arise on any proof being tendered for the balance ;
he had, therefore, carefully abstained from making
it. The notes on which the present proof was
offered had not been at all mixed up with the ge-
neral account. They were bills which the bank had
discounted.
Mr. STONE remarked that the bankers were at
liberty at any time to put the amount of the notes,
even if they had not done so, to the debit of his ac-
count, and then make the securities which they held
available for the balance.
His HoNoua—lf there are any securities I suppose
they will be put in as exhibits.
Mr. TiLsoN said the bills formed no part of the
account at all, the only exhibitions were the bills of
exchange themselves. The bankers claimed to have
no security on account of the bills, and if they had
they would give them up.
Mr. BEYAN—You could not do that. You are a
public officer.
Mr. STONE said he should produce a bankers' pass-
book, which the bankrupt had received from the
bankers, and some of the bills, if not all, would be
found entered in that account.
The COURT said, this
c
. being a matter of fact, it
easily be ascertained.
Mr. Timor; said that the book in question was not
a pass-book which had been kept between the parties,
but a copy of the ledger, which the bank, on being
applied to, had sent to the official assignee. When
an assignee was chosen he should present a proof,
stating the- .tecurities and the balance which the
bankers claimed.
Mr. BRYAN stated that there was no disposition on
the part of the creditors generally to deprive the bank
of proof for any sum which might be due to them,
but the accounts would require looking into very
minutely. What did his honour think had been
charged from 1841 half-yearly for interest? No less
than 3.5,000/., to say nothing of commission snd dis-
counts. This would have to be inquired into. Be-
sides, the bank had a security for 40,0001., and other
securities.
His Hos:nut—Do you dispute their debt ?
Mr. STONE—No ; we say they have a larger debt
than they ask to prove for, but we say all the trans-
actions are covered by securities, which ought to be
exhibited. The matter ought to oome fairly before
us, end let us see how it stands.

Mr. BEVAN—Besides, some of these securities have
been realised by the bank, and we ought to be satis-
fied that the proceeds have been properly applied. I
should like the Court to ask the official assignee how
long it would take to look into the accounts.
Mr. ACRAMAN (the official assignee) said, that to
examine the details would require about two months,
as the accounts extended over a period from 1840.
His HONOUR said it would not be necessary to make
such an examination at present. All they bad now to
inquire was, were the notes upon which the proof was
offered involved in the account ?

Mr. TiLsoN—They are not.
Mr. STONE—We contend, on the contrary, that
they are. There is one security for 40,0001. to cover
any balance.

His HONOUR said he thought it was incumbent on the
party giving the proof to enter more largely into his
case. It might be, no doubt, material to him to en-
deavour to insulate the matter by confining his proof
to the several notes, saying that they are not at all
involved ; but when doubts were suggested, and there
seemed reason to suspect that they might he involved,
it became material that the party applying to prove
should launch his case on a broader basis, so as to
show the Court generally what was the nature of the
accounts.

Mr. TILSoN said, allowing this, the observations
would only apply to the first transaction, because the
other bills were discounted for parties.
Mr. BEVAN said that it would be highly necessary,
for the creditors to look into the matter. They pro-
posed'as assignee Mr. John Russell, of Rises, a
highly-respectable and talented gentleman, a magis-
trate of the county, and possessed of the nicest honour.
Mr. Russell was a large coal proprietor, and was not
in any way connected with the bank as shareholder,
debtor, or creditor.
_ _

Mr. STONE added, that a more intelligent or highly
honourable man could not be chosen.

Mr. BEVAN contended that the other party, on the
contrary, wanted a gentleman who was a shareholder
in the bank.

Mr. TiLsoN said that Mr. Russell had formerly
been a partner with Jones, and there had been mat-
ters between them which involved a Chancery suit.
He had to propose a very honourable gentleman, Mr.
Powell, of Gaer.
Mr. BEVAN—He is a shareholder in the bank.
Mr. CHARLES BEVAN would not have interfered,
only there seemed to be a disposition to compromise
the matter, and he thought it right to state that he
represented a creditor for 2,000/. who objected that
Mr. Russell was not interested in the estate in any
way.

Mr. STONE—He is a disinterested man.
Mr. BEVAN said he had no objection to associate
Mr. Russell with Mr. Overton, but he objected to the
bank having a preponderating influence.
His HONOUR said no doubt justice required that
both parties should be represented; and, after a good
deal of discussion, it was ultimately arranged that Mr.
Russell, Mr. Powell, and Mr. Overton should be
joint assignees, the bank proofs to be taken into con-
sideration at a future meeting.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
Mr. Joshua Henry Wright, the landlord of the Dol-
phin public-house in Coleman-street, was brought up
before Sir P. Laurie, charged with being drunk and
using abusive language.
Police-constable 158 said be was passing defendant's
house about a quarter-past one o'clock on Sunday
morning, when he observed a light in the bar and
heard some one moving about. He called the consta-
ble on the beat, and then knocked at the door, when
defendant answered them from within, calling them
- wretches, and refusing to let them in ; but in
two or three minutes after defendant threw open the
doors and invited them to enter, and satisfy themselves
that the business was not being carried on at improper
hours. They searched the place and were leaving,
when defendant followed them into the street, and
abused them in very disgusting terms, which induced
witness to take him into custody.
Police-constable 146 corroborated this evidence.
Defendant said he had conducted the business of the
Dolphin for the last four years, and never yet had a
complaint against him, either of disorderly conduct or
not closing his house at 12 o'clock at night. In the
latter respect he had always been most particular, Ind
on the present occasion he was only looking over the
house to see everything safe before he went to bed, as
his barman had gone home at 12 o'clock, when the
house was closed.

Sir P. PAURIE said he thought this was a very
unnecessary interference on the part of the police.
Here was a man whose house is perfectly quiet, and
the officers had no reason to suspect anything
against him, beyond seeing a light in his house ;
and because he, naturally enough, got irritated at
their conduct, they take him into cutody and locked
him up.

Defendant requested permission further to state,
that notwithstanding it was a bailable offence, ha was
locked up all night, and every accommodation to
communicate with his friends to procure bail was de-
nied him at the station, although he offered to send
for 501. and deposit it there as a security for his ap-
pearance to answer the charge.
Sir P. LAURIE asked the first witness how he came
to charge the defendant at the station with being
drunk, and then neglect to mention that circumstance
in his evidence ?—The officer said the defendant was
drunk.

Sir P. LAURIE said the treatment the defendant had
experienced was most unwarrantable, and he hoped
it would be properly represented to the Commissioner,
for it was evidently a malicious proceeding altogether.
He certainly never heard of such cruelty as to drag a
man from his home and family and then refuse to let
him get bail.

Defendant said, his wife at the time was in a bad
state of health, and was obliged to leave her bed at
10 o'clock on the following morning to procure his
liberation, the consequence of which was that she
was now in a very precarious condition.
Sir P. LAURIE—Such inhumanity on the part of
the constable should not pass unpunished.
The defendant then asked police-constable 146 if
he had ever supplied him with drink gratuitously ?
The officer replied "Never," and that " he was not
the sort of man to do so."

Sir P. LAURIE said, from that answer he was more
thoroughly convinced that the charge resulted from
malice. He supposed the officer had some cause to
know the defendant was not inclined to treat police-
men, or he would not have made such an answer.
He therefore discharged the defendant, and directed
Inspector Joy to report this case to the Commissioner
in order that it might be properly inquired into.
The defendant said that, having no witnesses, he
expected he should have been unjustly fined ; there-
fore, under the circumstances, he felt great pleasure
in giving 1/. to the poor-box.

superior courts of law, with the consent of her Majesty's
Attorney-General."

If you are in a condition to prove that the tide of
"Lord Bishop of Southwark" has been assumed by
any one, you can, on obtaining the permission of her
Majesty's Attorney-General, take proceedings for the
recovery of the 1001. penalty.
Applicant—Your Worship does not think I should
be justified, under the circumstances, in pulling the
placard down ?
Mr. Eworr—Certainly not.
The applicant thanked his Worship for the attention
which he paid him, and left the court evidently dis•
satisfied with the result of bis application, and de-
claring he should at once communicate with Lord
John Russell on the subject.