The Sun.
London, England, 1833-02-11 00:00:00

MEYER V. JADIS.

The SOLICITOR•GENERAL stated, that this was
an action on two bills of exchange, dated October,
1830, one for 500/., the other for 2,0001., both
drawn by the defendant, accepted by Lord Foley,
and indorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The
defendant was a gentleman of fortune, residing in
Bryanston-square, and held a place of 2,0001. a
year under Government. He had drawn the bills
in order to raise money for Lord Foley, on his Lord-
ship's own acceptance. The bills had been dis-
counted by the plaintiff at the request of a Mr. Ri-
chardson, but upon an express declaration by the
defendant that all was right. The bills having been
presented for p.tyment arid dishonoured, this action
was brought. The handwriting of the parties and
the dishonour of the bills were proved. On the
bills being read,
Sir J. SCARLETT addressed the Jury. His de-
fence was, that there was usury both in the original
concoction of the bills and the transaction with the
plaintiff. Neither Lord Foley nor Mr. Jadis, the
defendant, had received one farthing for the bills,
which were drawn and accepted together with two
others, and the whole were handed over to a person
of the name of Penel, a picture-dealer in Piccadilly,
for the purpose of getting them discounted. Two
of them were discounted, but for the bills in ques-

Lion some pictures had been received from Penel,
which, when offered for sale by Mr. Christie, the
auctioneer, were found to be worth only about 250/,
The defendant had never received any value for the
pictures, and therefore considered himself not bound
to pay the amount of these two bills.
The July, after hearing evidence, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, for principal and interest-
-2,7001.

DOYLE V. DOUGLAS.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT stated that this was an ac-

don on two policies of insurance for 2,500/. on the
ship Triton, of which the plaintiff had been master
and owner. The ship was insured originally for 12
months, from the 28th of October, 1828, and after-
wards, in consequence of her being detained by
blockade at Wine Video, she was again insured for
another year, in October, 1829. The destination
attic vessel was Buenos Ayres, and she arrived
there early in October, 1829, when the captain dis-
covered that something had happened to her. Alta
remaining in the river Plata for a short time she
filled with water and sank. She was subsequently
sold to a ship carpenter at Buenos Ayres for 301.
odd, and in a few days after, in consequence of a
fall in the height of water in the river, the pur-
chaser was enabled to raise her, but she was never
tit again for active .service, and was soon afterwards

broken up. The plaintiff now claimed as for a total
loss.

The witnesses having proved the facts as stated,
Mr. POLLOCK addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, FEB. 9.

EX PARTE ARNSBY IN RE LORD.

This petition, which has occupied the Court five
whole days, was the petition of three creditors to
supersede the fiat, on the ground of its being con
celled between the petitioning creditor, the bank-
rupt, and the solicitor, for their own purposes.
Mr. SWANSTON and Mr. MONTAGU for the peti-
tioners, said that the commission was fraudulent
from the beginning to the end. The bankrupt, who
was a farmer residing at Long Buckley, a village
five miles from Daventry, was, at the death of his
father, in December, 1831, in great difficulties, in
consequence of his father's as well as his own debts
pressing upon him. On the 17th of August, 1832,
a sheriff's officer having gone to Mr. Lucas, who
was Lord's solicitor, and told him that he had a
distress against Lord's goods, they both went
to Lord's, and persuaded him to be made a bank-
rupt, Lucas telling him that he would manage it,
and he should come by no harm. Lucas and Lord
then went to Cowley, who was a farmer in the
neighbourhood, and a creditor of Lord, to invite him
to become the petitioning creditor, to which he con-
sented. It was also arranged that Lord should go
home, and be denied to Cowley by his waggoner, in-
structed for the purpose. This arrangement was acted
upon except that Lord:was denied by the sheriff's offi-
cer instead of by the waggoner. Lord fromlB27 to 1830
had occasionally malted a few quarters of barley for
himself and friends, which was the trading under
which the commission was to be sued out. On the
20th of August the Commissioners met, when
Lucas found that Cowley's debt, which was 1301.,
for 21 tams bought in March, 1832, by Lord of
Cowley, would not do, as the trading did not reach
so far down. Lucas therefore, according to Lord's
statement, drew a promissory note for 1001. and
ante-dated it to make it come within the trading,
which Lord signed. Thinking it better not to make
use of the act of bankruptcy of the 17th of August,
the servant girl of Lord was brought before the
Commissioners, who swore that she had often, by
his orders, denied Lord to his creditors, and spoke
to a certain day when she had denied him to one
Norton, a sheriff's officer, who called to see him
about a debt. Lord, his mother, and sister, in their
affidavits, all swore that he went from home on that
day at 10 o'clock in the morning, and did not return
till the following day; and the servant had made an
affidavit denying the truth of her former statement,
and saying she was induced to make it through the
importunities of Lucas. In October last a petition
having been prepared to supersede the commission,
a compromise was set on foot, by which Cowley was
to pay 5001. for the damage done to the estate, but
under the advice of counsel afterwards broken off.
Under these circumstances, Messrs. Montagu and
Swanston submitted that the commission ought to
be superseded with costs.
Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. BACON, and Mr. WHITAIARSII,
for the respondents, denied the fabrication of the
note, and by the certificate of the Commissioners it
appeared that no note whatever had been produced
before them.

The COURT said the affidavits on both sides were
so contradictory, that the case must be laid before
the Attorney-General, who would investigate it,
and take such steps to prosecute the parties as
he should think fit.

Fiat superseded, and costs to be reserved till
after the investigation.

INSOLVENT COURT, FEB, 9.

William Beaumont was opposed by Mr. COOKE
for a Mr. Ansel ; he was supported by Mr. C. JONES.
The insolvent, in December, 1831, had by this
Court been appointed assignee of the estate of an
insolvent named Cooper, who, having neglected to
comply with an order of the Commissioners, was
not yet discharged from imprisonment. Cooper had
mortgaged sorne property at West Ham to a Nir.
Butts for 2,000/. Under his authority, as assignee,
Beaumont had endeavoured to collect the rents from
the tenants at West Ham; both he and Mr. Butts
had served notices to the tenants not to pay. Beau
mont put a distress into the premises of a tenart,
Mr. Ansel (for whom Mr. Cooke appeared); the
result was an action of replevin, in which Beau-
mont was cast, and considerable legal expenses in-
curred, and the Learned Counsel now urged the
Court to remand Beaumont for his conduct in the
business, under the discretionary clause.
The COURT observed that• the insolvent must be
remanded. With regard to the merits of the case,
there was nothing to prevent the insolvent from
being discharged forthwith.

EXCISE COURT, FEB. 9.

THE KING V. MIDDLETON.

The defendant, .Tames Middleton, was charged
upon an excise information, with unlawfully con-
ducting a private still for the manufacture of wines
and spirits.
The defendant appeared (an unusual circum-
stance) and pleaded " Not Guilty."
Witnesses were called who gave him an excellent
character.

After a long discussion, the Commissioners, con-
sidering the case doubtful, acquitted the defendant,
but condemned the still, apparatus, and liquor seized
to the use of the Crown.