The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-18 00:00:00

FEBRTJARY 18, 1858

LAW INTELLIGENOR—C,This Day.;

HOUSE OF LORDS.
(Present—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, and
other Peers.)
APPEAL-THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY V. LINDSAY.
This important appeal cause was appointed fur bearing
this morning.

The Lord Chancellor /laid that Lord Wenslsydale
declined to sit to hear this case, on the ground chat
ho was a shareholder of the London and North
Western Railway Company. The Lord Chancellor
entertained doubts cf the propriety of his lcrdship's
declinature' as every Peer in this house was, or might
be somewhat interested in causes coming before it,
but not to the extent of disqualifying them to sit and
judge in the case.

- Counsel in the cause—The Attorney-General ; the
Lord Advocate ; Mr. Anderson, Q.C. ; and Mr. Rult,
Q.C.

The Attorney-General opened the case for the
appellant.

The respondent, Mr. Lindsay, raised two actions
before the Court of Session in Scotland against the rail-
way company. The first was an action of damages for
refusing to carry his fruit. The second was in action
of solatiunt, for injury done to his fr‘el ligs, by exhibiting
a notice in their office of their refusal to carry his fiu't
Upon these actions he used arrestruents in the
hands of the Caledonian Railway Company
against the London and North Western Railway
Company, for the purpose of founding the juris-
diction of the Court of Session over the London and
Nortb-Westertt Railway Company, an English com-
pany, jurisdictione fundandi causa, until the company
found caution de jadicio sisti et judicatunt ro:vi to answer
the judgments of the Court. The appellants ob-
jected to the competency of the action and re-
levancy of the arrestmeote. That arreetments
jurisdictione fandandi causa are competent only
upon actions of debt and not upon unliquidated
actions of damages. Lord Neave's ordinary, by his
interlocutor, sustained the competency of the actions
and jurisdiction of the court over the railway company.
On 20th Nov., 1855, the Lords of the First Division of
the Court of Session affirmed the interlocutor of Lord
Neave's ordinary, with coats. From these interlocutors,
or judgments, the railway company appealed to the
House of Lords.

The Attorney-General argued that if these arrestments
were sustained, if any Englishmen left his hat or
umbrella in a hotel in Scotland it might be arrested in
the hands of the hotel keeper, and an action afterwards
brought against him, and in his absence and behind his
back a judgment of the court might be obtained against
him which might be attended with the meet ruinous
consequences to him. It is probable that the hearing
of the case will occupy the whole of this day.
The next appeal case on the paper set down for
hearing is the appeal of Edmond v. Gordon, also a Seotch
appeal.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commigsioner Rol:11d.)
IN RE BRITTEN.

This bankrupt was described as of Noble-street,
fringe manufacturer, and to-day was appointed for the
last examination meeting, which had been adjourned
that the assignees might have an opportunity of inves•
tigating the accounts which had been filed under the
private arrangement act but the case was ultimately
converted into a bankruptcy.
Mr. Bagley, on the part of the assignees, now said
that they had got through the bankrupt's books which
had been kept with great regularity, and they were
perfectly satisfied with the accounts.
The bankrupt now passed.
. _

Mr. Pook, for the bankrupt, asked for an allowance
up to the present time as the delay had not occurred
through any negligence on part.
The assignees did not object and the order was made.
IN RE WADE.

This bankrupt had earried on business as a paper
manufacturer at Postford Mills, near Guildford.
From the accounts by Messrs. Paul and Turner it
appears that the debts are about 1,0921., and liabilities,
1,0791.; but the property amount ibg to 1,5261. had been
seized under an execution. The chief cause of the bank-
ruptcy was the liability through a person named Molk-n-
-den, with whom the bankrupt had been in partnership,
and who forged du?lieat.e bills of lading and cobverted
thew to his own use, and for which offence he is now
suffering penal servitude.
The bankrupt passed without opposition.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.— (This Day

MA RLBOROUGH-STREET.

A MILITARY GENTLEMAN'S INTERFERENCE.—Ann
Bingham was this morning charged with annoying male
passengers, in Castle-street, in the neighbourhood of
Leicester-square, while in a state of drunkenness, and
Captain Dainey Roebuck with attempting to rescue her
from the custody of the police.
Police-constable C 50, Reeve, said he saw the female
the prisoner, who was drunk, at half-past two o'clock in
morning, laying hold of gentlemen. He desired her to
desist,but she continued, and laid hold of oneopparently
much to his annoyance, when he took her into
custody. Oa the road to the station with his
prisoner, the male defendant came up, and told
him to Ist her go. Oi course he took no notice of
this, and he then accused him of using unnecessary
violence towards her, which he told him was not
required. As they proceeded the male defendant kept
dodging about them, at one time in front and then at
his aide, so that witness found it necessary to call for
the assistance of another policeman whom he met.
When opposite the Great Globe in Leicester-square
O. male defendant seized hold of wit esee arm and
exclaimed, "Blast you, ify on don't leave the woman alone
I'll punch your head." Witness then gave the female
prisoner over to his comrade, and arrested the male
defendant for obstructing him in the execution of his
duty, for the purpose of rescuing a prisoner from
custody.
C 49 confirmed the last witness's statement as re- '
garded part of the interference, the laying hold of the
constable's arm, and the threat.

The male defendant, having been called upen for his
answer, said the constable's statement was true, except
the words it was alleged he bad used. He saw the con-
stables taking the woman along with unnecessary
violence, and merely said, " Don't you think you will
gain your object better by refraining from sueh vio-
lence?" for they were pulling her by her arms, to the
danger of dislocating them. Greatly to his surprise, he,
on his remonstrating, was laid hold of, the constable
asking him who he was—Prince Albert, the Emperor
of the French, or an infernal Marquis ?
A gentleman, formerly in the army, said be was with
defendant, his friend, and certainly did not hear the
words attributed to him.
Mr. Bingham said that was very probable, but be
believed the btatement of the two constables, to one of
whom they were addressed, that they were used. He
would advise the defendant, when he was inclined to
interfere for the protection of suffering damsels, to let it
be for some worthier object than a drunken prostitute.
As a military tnae, he would think it very presumptuous
of the police interfering with him in escorting a prisoner.
He should, being the first time, di charge the female
prisoner, but fine th-i male defendant 40s.