The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-10 00:00:00

LA W INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 9.

COURT OF APPEAL.
TEE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.

Sir F. Kelly concluded his argument yesterday,
shortly after three o'clock, at the termination of which
a conversation took placa between the counsel engaged
relative to an arrangement to allow the Court of Bank-
ruptcy to administer the assets, and that application be
made to the Court of Chancery to nppsint a receiver to
act in concert with the official assignee.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce said such a❑ arrangement
ought to be made out of court. In the event of no
agreement being come to the Conrt would deliver judg-
ment on the 19th inst.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

HOWE V. KENNEDY AND ANOTHER.-NECLICENCE OF THE

SHERIFFS OF MIDDLESEX.

Mr. Joyce and Mr. Doyle were counsel for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Quain represented the de-
fendants.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a printer, to
recover from the defendants, Messrs. Kennedy and Rose,
the late sheriffs of Middlesex, 211. ls. 2d. for their neglect-
ing to execute a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum for that
amount, which had been issued against Mr. Sheridan
Smith, at the suit of the plaintiff. From the evidence it
appeared :that the writ in question was, on the 19th of
February, placed in the hands of Barry, the follower of
Lawrence Levi, the sheriff's officer, with instructions that
it was to be put in force that evening against Smith, who
was to act under the name of Swanborough at the Strand
Theatre for his own benefit. It, however, happened that a
Mr. Fox Cooper, a -dramatic author, who was in treaty
with Mr. Levi to take the Garrick Theatre, of which he
was the proprietor, was at Levi's office on the day when
the writ was in the hands of Barry. Barry endeavoured
to obtain some information about Smith, and finally re-
vealed to Mr. Cooper that he had an execution against
him, who, wishing to save his friend from being arrested,
immediately obtained an 'interview with Smith and put
him en his guard. Subsequently Mr. Cooper, according
to appointment, met Barry at the Spotted Dog, in the
Strand, and handed him 103., which had been " mustered"
amongst the theatrical brethren, on the understanding that

he was not to put the writ into execution. This arrange -
ment having been completed, Smith proceeded to regale
himself in the saloon of the theatre, and during the time
he was there Barry went in, looked at him, and retired.
Subsequently these facts came to the knowledge of the
plaintiff, who instituted proceedings against the then
sheriffs, and hence the present action. _ _

The substantial defence set up was that the plaintiff had
sustained no injury, as even if Smith had been arrested he
would not have been able to liquidate the claim, he being
at the time in insolvent circumstances.
The jury, without calling on the learned judge to sum
up, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount
claimed-211. is. 2d.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)
IN RE ROYAL BRITIHIi BANK.-PROPOSED APPOINTMENT
OF A RECEIVER. ,
Mr. Lawrance—l have to apply to your Honour to name
a day for determining the question as to the appointment
of a receiver. I have made previous applications to your
Honour on this head ; but I must now ask the Court to
name a day for formally hearing the application.
The Commissioner—Would it not be better to wait until
the Lords Justices have given their decision?
Mr. Lawrance—l make this application upon the strength
of an arrangement suggested by the Lords Justices for the
purpose of settling all questions—a suggestion dropped by
their lordships yesterday. I have to inform the Court
that this petition is presented at the instance of the solici-
tors to many of the creditors, though our names alone ap-
pear affixed to it. I would also observe that the presenta-
tion of this petition is quite a matter of course, whatever
course your Honour may think fit to pursue when the peti-
tion comes on for hearing. It is most important to have
this question discussed and determined before your Ho-
nour at the earliest possible moment.
The Commissioner—Why ?
Mr. Lawrance Because, as I told your Honour on a
former occasion, proceedings are being taken against indi-
vidual shareholders.
The Commissioner—l cannot possibly hear it until the
Lords Justices have come to a decision upon the matter
before them. If I fixed a day for hearing the petition, and
the Lords Justices had not given their decision before that
day, I should, of course, postpone the hearing of the peti-
tion.

Mr. Lawrance—l submit to your Honour that I have a
right to have a day now named for hearing this petition.
Of course it will be in your power, when the day arrives,
to postpone it again. But the two matters are quite distinct.
The Commissioner—Well, then, suppose wo name a day
about a fortnight hence.
Mr. Lawrance—That will throw us into Christmas. I
submit that I have a right to a day eight days from the
presentation of the petition.
The Commissioner—You might have it advanced, if
nocossay.

Mr Lawrence—Perhaps not, sir. That could not be
done without the consent of all parties, and all parties
might not consent. I must press on the court now to ap-
point a day. Of course, it will be in the discretion of the
court to postpone the hearing when that day shall arrive.
His Honour then appointed Thursday, the 18th inst., for
hearing the petition.
IN RE (}LEN.-BETTING ON HORSE RACING.-APPLICA
TION FOR DISCHARGE.
The bankrupt, Adam Glen, late of the White Bear, Pic-
cadilly, had his certificate refused in March last, on the
groand of his having lost more than 201. in one day by
betting on horse-racing. The protection being withdrawn ,
he was shortly after taken in execution, and has remained
in prison ever since—now nearly nine months. An appli-
cation for his disoharge was made a few weeks ago and
refused.

Mr. Johnson now renewed the application, which was
fortified by a medical certificate, stating that the bank-
rupt's health was seriously impaired by his confinement.
As the matter was entirely in the descretion of the court,
it was submitted that this was a case for the exercise of
that power, the bankrupt having a young family and an
aged mother dependent on him for support.
Mr. Metcalfe opposed the application, alleging that there
were grounds to suspect that the bankrupt had still pro-
perty in his possession or under his control. He made
over considerable property to a woman who had lived with
him, and the creditors wereconvinced that he had control
over that property. The best proof of this was the ex-
pense that was incurred by the bankrupt in making these
continual applications to the court for his discharge.
His Honour said that the application was altogether ir-
regular. After the former application was refused, the
bankrupt, if dissatisfied, ought to have appealed. Ho had
no locus standi, and the application could not be cuter-
tained. It ought not to have been allowed to be placed
on the paper.