The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-28 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII.

Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice Cock
burn, and Justices Blackburn and Mellor.)
WATKIN V. HALL.

Mr. Kirby applied to the Court on behalf of the
plaintiff, for a rule calling oa the defendant to
show cause why a plea, which he had placed on the
ground, should not be withdrawn, as being calcu-
lated to embarrass the case, which is set down for
hearing, and being consequently opposed to the
52d section of the Common Law Procedure Act,
passed in the reign of George IV. The slander
was in words spoken by the plaintiff, in which he
was alleged to have stated publicly that the plain-
tiff, who is a member of Parliament and chairman
of the South-Eastern Railway, and chairman and
director of other railway companies, had failed and
was insolvent, and conveyed an innuendo that the
state of the company's affairs and their stock being
depreciated in value was owing to his embarrass-
ment. The plea which it was proposed to strike
out of the record was that the defendant merely
repeated a rumour current on the Stock Exchange,
and he denied that he bad said more than that it
was reported the plaintiff bad failed, not that he
was actually insolvent, and he disclaimed any in-
tention of conveying the innuendo in question.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said that the ',proper
course would be to demur to the pleading.
The motion was accordingly refused.
IN THE MATTER OF AN ATTORNEY.

This was a case in which a rule nisi was obtained,
calling on the defendant to show cause why he
should not pay over a sum of £175 to a gentleman
named Smith, and the defendant appeared against
the rule being made absolute. He stated that he was
an attorney, and the only object he had in retaining
the money was to secure himself against any ulte-
rior proceedings, and expressing his readiness to
pay it into the hands of a solicitor for Mr. Smith
or his sister. It appeared that a lady, a friend of
Mr. Smith's, was desirous of emigrating to
Australia, and applied to him ror funds to enable
her to go there with her daughter, and he placed a
sum in the hands of the attorney in the case, ou the
condition that it was to be laid out in an outfit and
the payment of the passage of the lady and her
daughter when they were on board the
Vessel. He latterly altered her intention
of emigrating, and it appeared that she
was a married woman, and her husband claimed the
money. In this state of things Mr. Smith desired
the attorney to pay the lady's daughter a portion of
the money, knd to remit the remainder to his sister,
Miss Smith. Ile altered his intention with regard
to the latter, and directed that the money should be
sent to him, so that the attorney was in doubt as to
what party he should pay.

The Court considered that the claim of the hus-
band of the lady was preposterous, and that the
attorney should have immediately returned the
money to Mr. Smith.

The rule was accordingly made absolute.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Registrar Pepys.)
IN RE LIEUTENANT-COLONEL S. A. DICKSON.

This bankrupt was formerly M.P. for Limerick
and a lieutenant-colonel of the Limerick Militia,
and to-day was appointed for the proof of debts.
The bankrupt presented a petition some time since,
but it was dismissed by Mr. Commissioner Goul-
bourn through some informality in the three days'
statement, the bankrupt being sent back to prison,
where he was recently adjudicated a bankrupt by
Mr. Registrar Pepys,
who discharged him from
custody. The statement already filed shows debts
to the extent of £12,000, and the bankrupt has
considerable property, which has, however, been
mortgaged. The proceedings to-day were purely
formal, and a day was named for the next meeting.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
ABRARAMS V. ANSELL.
This was an action to recover £7 16s. for providing a
supper for 52 Foresters at 38. a head. It appeared that
some time since the plaintiff was requested to furnish a
supper fora Foresters' Court, and he agreed to do so.
Tickets were printed, and a notice was sent out with them
that if they wore not returned by a certain day it would
bo understood that the persons to whom they were ad-
dressed would be liable for the price. Plaintiff provided
the supper, and a certain number sat down to it ; and
plaintiff now sued defendant, who was one of the com-
mittee, for the whole amount.
Defendant said he was only one member of the com-
mittee, and there seven other persons joined with him.
He did not think he was liable for the whole amount.

Plaintiff stated that he received the orde;Tforil;;;;pper
through defendant.
His Honour (to defendant)—You must got the money
from your fellow committee-men. At present you are liable
to the plaintiff.
Defendant—But the full number did not sit down to
supper.
His Honour—That does not matter. You ordered the
plaintiff to provide a supper for a certain number of per-
sons, and he did so. If the full number did not attend,
after being warned that in the absence of their informing
plaintiff upon the subject they would bo held liable, plain-
tiff is entitled to recover for the full number. You must
pay the plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff, with costs.