The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-08 00:00:00

SIBLEY V. FENDALL.

• This was an action for the recovery by the plaintiff da-
mages for alleged criminal conversation by the defendant
with his wife.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, Mr. F. POLLOCK, and Mr. KELLY
conducted the plaintiff's case ; the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
Mr. Sergeant STORKS, Mr. ANDREWS, and Mr. GUNNING,
the defendant's. _

M. •. KELLY opened the pleadings, in which the damages
were laid at 5,0001.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE addressed the Jury. The plaintiff,
Mr. Robert Sibley, was married to his present wife in the
month of October, 1826, the daughter of a respectable
dress-maker of the name of Walford, and at her marriage
she was between twenty and thirty years of age, her hus-
band being considerably below forty. At the time of his
marriage he carried on the business of a silk-mercer in
Oxford-street ; but having acquired by honest industry
that which he deemed a sufficient fortune, he afterwards
retired from business, and went with his wife to reside at
Luton, in Bedfordshire, where he became acquainted with
the defendant, Mr. Fendall, who was an opulent butcher,
living in Woodstock-street, Oxford-street. The Learned
Counsel then entered into the details of his case, which
mainly relied on the evidence of one witness.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the jury on the
part of the defendant, and called witnesses to prove that the
plaintiff was labourinc, under a delusion.
In the course of the examination of a witness,
Mr. Sergeant WILDE rose and said—My Lord, it is
unnecessary to proceed further with this case, and I do not
wish to occupy the time of the Court any longer with it.
Circumstances have come out this day in the examination

of witnesses of which I was not advised, and which entirely
alter the case.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—I think you are perfectly
right, Mr. Wilde, in adopting that course. It appears to
inc clear that the plaintiff has been labouring under a delu-
sion, whatever may be said of other parties.
The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited, evidently to the
gratification of one of the most crowded Courts we ever
witnessed.

The case lasted from ten in the morning till six o'clock in
the evening.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

Two private meetings of the creditors of Messrs. Bent-
ley, Dear, and Co., were lately held before Mr. Commis-
sioner EVANS, at this Court, for the purpose of inquiring
into Bentley's bill transactions.
Mr Gumersall, the billbroker, was examined at very
considerable length respecting the disposal of the two notes
for 10,0001. each, which Bentley negotiated a short time
before he quitted this country. Mr. Gumersall stated that
the two notes were received by their house from Bentley,
and that one of them was paid to Vere and Co., and the
other to R. Thornton, Esq.
It has been stated that Bentley met you at the house of
some third person, and asked you if you had placed the
balances, meaning the two 10,0001. notes ; and upon your
saying " Yes," exclaimed, " Then I am a ruined man," and
begged datnestly for you to do something for him ; that you
then said that your house would stop on Monday morning ;
that you had taken care of 2,6001. for yourselves ; that
Bentley should have 2,0001. of it for himself ; that you then
rang the bell for pen, ink, and paper, and said that Bentley
might draw a cheque on your house for 2,0001. ; that Bentley
di so, in the name of Bentley, Dear, and Co. ; that you
wished to have the cheque ; that Bentley refused to give it
to you, and that it was agreed that Bentley was to have the
2,0001. on Monday morning ; that he sent on the Monday
morning, aaci was informed that you could not give him a
shilling ; and that you (meaning house) had stopped.
Is that statement true ?—All lies, from begmi;:PF
to end.
dt,t4 it *holies

Bicl ;ou Mber stateto niiy imitati; when veaking of the
two 10,0001. notes, that you had done Bentley nicely out
of the two notes, or anything of that or the like effect?--
Not that I recollect.

Will you affirm that you have not so said ?—No.
What nonsideyation did your house receive for the
10,000/. hate ifa§ Vaid to Aft: Thornton F—
. 5,000/. ; besilq that, he held other bills of.
_ _ _

Mr. Riehaid`Thornton, of the Old Swan, merchant, wag
then examined respecting one of the 10,0001. notes given
by Bentley in the pame,,of.the firm. Mr. Thornton stated
that he received the bill in quesiiuri OH the 5.42 d of. Sep-
tember from Mr. Gandall, a partner in the house of Cu-
mersall,. Gandall, and Co, The circumstances under which
tle6l4;ed the iiote iCCre the .o...awifig 1-- Clattter§alli
Gandall, and Co., were indebted to him a sum of 4,000 k,
balance of bills given to them, which balance they pro-
mised to pay on the 19th of September. He called to re-
ceive it, when Gandall stated it was not convenient to pay
it that day; hut they iVtiniti tiny It Mt the following day
(Saturday). The money, however, was not paid on that
day, and on Monday morning he (Mr. Thornton) waited
on Mr. Gandall. He asked him why he had not paid the
4,0001., as promised. Mr. Gandall stated that he had
been &appointed in receiving some . money which he had
expected, but that it should be paid in a day or two ;
ness said he would not let it stand over for a single hour,
and that he should be under the painful necessity of ar-
resting (Gandall) forthwith if he did not return either the
bills to the amount of 4,00 W., or the 4,0001. ; at this Mr.
Gandall got very much alarmed, and said he hulled witness
would do no such thing ; witness declared he would, and.
Mr. Gandall then produced the bill of Bentley, Dear, and
Co., for 10,000/., and asked witness to take that note and
give him the difference ; witness, however, declined advan-
cing more than 1,0001., which sum Mr. Gandall received,
and handed witness the 10,000/. note. The note he after-
wards paid to Messrs. Thornton and West for bills on
Rotterdam, which have been paid.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DEC. 6.

IMPORTANT MOTION.-IN THE MATTER OF WM. STOKOE.

In this matter Mr. COOKE, at the rising of the Court,
made an important motion. He applied under the 67th
section of the Act on the part of the insolvent, a Lieutenant
in the service of the East India Company, for a re-hearing,
on the ground that the adjudication of the Court was im-
properly made and against evidence. The insolvent, who
was heard in the September sittings, was opposed on the
part of a gentleman named Dunn, residing in Dublin, and
sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment for having
fraudulently contracted a debt with him to a large amount.
The insolvent had married some years ago a sister of Mr.
Dunn, on whom he made on the nuptial day a settlement
of 100/. a year. He soon afterwards left her, had served
since in India, and after an absence of several years he re-
turned to England to be re-united to his wife. He was
soon afterwards taken on a judgment he had signed for her
allowance, and applied to the Court to be discharged ; he
had saved whilst in India between 1,0001. and 2,0001.,
which he placed in the hands of his agents ; they failed,
and a dividend of 2s. 6d. in the pound which they had paid,
he delivered into Court. The opposindereditor, Mr. Dunn,
was a trustee under the settlement, and the Court held
that the debt duel.) him in that capacity, extending over a
lengthened period, had been fraudulently incurred, and re-
manded the insolvent accordingly. The present applica-
tion was grounded on a pathetically-worded affidavit of the
insolvent, in which he eloquently set forth his matrimonial
miseries, their corroding nature, the estrangement of his
wife's affections, his fears and hopes in India, and his anxiety
on his arrival in England for a re-union with his wife, to
share his weal or woe ; he was, according to his own
showing, a man " more sinned against than sinning ;" he
had suffered severely from illness during his imprisonment.
Mr. Commissioner BowEN suggested certain omissions
in the affidavit. He would grant the application, on the
ground that the settlement was invalid, and that Counsel
had been taken by surprise, and that the debt was not
fraudulently contracted.

A rule nisi on Mr. Dunn on those points was granted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.

One of the overseers of St. Nicholas Olave, Bread-
street, attended before Mr. Alderman BROWN to show
why he refused to relieve .a widow and her three children.
Mr. Alderman BaowN hoped the overseers would con-
sider the matter again, and dismissed the poor widow, tell-
ing her he had no power to assist her, and he was sorry
it was so.