The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-20 00:00:00

MORE FRAUDS ON THE GREAT
NORTHERN RAILWAY.

We stated in The ,S'itn of yesterday that other frauds
would no doubt shortly be discovered i❑ the accounts of
the Gfta,t Northern Railway Company. To-day our
anticipations have proved correct by the discovery
of another large fraud perpetrated in the accountanfa
office.

This morning Clerkenwell Police Court was crowded
to excess to hear the charges preferred against Mr. NV.
Snell, the chief clerk in the accountant's office, who was
placed at the bar before Mr. Tyrwhitt, charged with
embersling a sum of nearly 1,000/., the monies of the
company.
Mr. Leitch appeared for the prosecution.

From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner had
been chief clerk in the accountant's office, and in that
situation all the cheques drawn by the directors were
placed in the hands of Mr. Thynolds, the accountant,
and by him given into the custody of the prisoner. One
cheque for 5001., drawn in favour of the Provident
Fund, and dated 11th of July, was appropriated by him
to his own purposes. Yesterday, when asked to make
up his accounts, he said he was a defaulter to the extent
of 1,0001., and that he was very sorry. Mr. Reynolds
told him he must consider himself in custody.

The facts having been shortly gone into,
the prisoner
was remanded for a few days.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Campbell, Justices
Wightman, Coleridge, and Erle.)

THE QUEEN V. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER IN INSOLVENCY

Sir F. Thesiger moved for a mandamus against Mr.
Law, Chief Commissioner in Insolvency, commanding
him to make an order for the payment of the surplus of
an insolvent's estate, under the 92d section of the Ist and
2d Victoria, chap. 110, which enacts that in any case
where a surplus remains after discharging in full an
insolvent's estate, it shall be lawful for the Court,
on application duly made, to order that all such
property so remaining shall be vested in the
person whose debts have been so discharged, or his exe-
cutors, administrators, or asigns. The insolvent, in
this case, was a person named George William Dyson ;
he became an insolvent, and on Bth July, 1850, after he
had filed his schedule, he sold "all other his estate and
effects to a Mr. Cooke for 3,0001." After paying the
insolvent's debts, a surplus remained of about 4,000/.,
and the insolvent, subsequently to executing the deed t•
Cooke, petitioned the Court a second time. The
Chief-Commissioner proposed to dispose of the
surplus by appropriating it towards the liquidation of the
debts under the second insolvency, which was objected
to by Cooke, and a writ of prohibition had been obtained
from the Lord Chancellor to restrain the Chief Commis-
siener from disposing of the insolvent's estate other than
under the first insolvency.

Lord Campbell—You contend that the order referred
to is a ministerial act and that the Chief Commissioner
has no judicial discretion in the case, and that it is im-
perative on him to make the order.
Sir F. Thessiger—Yes. The Chief Commissioner has
refused to make any order with regard to the sum.
Lord Campbell—Take a rule.
Rule granted accordingly.