The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-05 00:00:00

COM T. BIiAGG.

Mr. Cracknall moved for an ex parte injunction to restrain
the defendants from selling property belonging to the plain-
titf, a lady residing at Hastings, and there carrying en the
business of a lodging-housekeeper. The property consisted
of furniture in certain lodging-houses at Hastincs, and the
defendants are the proposed trustees of a deed of trust for
tt:e benefit of the creditors of Mrs. Cox, but which has not
t been execated. Mrs. Cox has obtained an order of the
Divorce Court protecting her property from her husband,
Mr. Writ, Cox.
Their lordships made the order far an injunction to re-
strain the further sale of the furniture, with liberty to apply
to any judge of the Court to dissolve,the injunction, or to
ni-charge the order now made. The order to be upon the
terms of Mrs. Cox by her next friend, and her solicitor un-
•irrtaking to be answerable in damages and otherwise, and
to abide by any order the Court might make in respect of
damages and otherwise.

_
The sale was advertised to take place on three successive
days, the first fray's sale 'eking place this day (Wednesday.)

THE COLLINS COMPANY V. REEVES.

Their lordship; made an ;Wel'i; this irnpariant case—re-
ia.ing to the subject of trade marks—to carry into effect a
co•npromise which has been arranged on tkefollowing terms :
—The defendant to pay £lOO damages and taxed costs of
the common law action and the suit in Chancery, and a
•iecree to be taken, by consent, for a perpetual injunction ;
payment of net profits agreed at £lOO, and taxed costs of
the suit.

fir. Bacon supported the application.
The Court bats now risen for the long vacation.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY..—Aun. 4.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goalburn.)
IN RR KRAL AND ROBERTS.

This was an examination meeting, and alsa for- the de-
c' aration of dividend, in the case of William Henry John
Neal and Daniel Jackson Roberts, merchants, of 3, Rood-
lane, and of Charlotte Town, Prince Edward's Island.
Tne Irdance-sheet commences Feb. 6, 18.54. and ends
)lay 1, 1838, and shows a gross liability of between £ll.OOO
and £12,000, and assets about £3,180 in the hands of the
tlieial assignee.

Mr. Jones, fir the assignees, stated that an adjournment
IV uld he necessary, under rather peculiar circumstances.
Toe assignees had sent one of the bankrupts (Roberts)
over to Prince Edward's Island, for the purpose of realising
all the property there belonging to the firm. Before Mr.
Robers could return he hid been arrested, and had been
chliged to give security upon the property he went to
rrolise ; he therefore had not been abie to accomplish the
chit:et of his visit. The eivieend also would be deferred in
cuns,quence of this occurrence. The assignees had sent a
wn leman out to Prince Edward's Hind, iaith a power of
torney, to act for them ; and until they heard from him
.- inv were unable to give 'durt any information.
The tvijournment was accordingly ordered.
IN RE WILD.

The binkrupt was a carman of Smthwark. This was the
certificate meeting. His debts were £1,860, and assets
about £3OO. The profits in 13 months had been £1,132;
expenses and lo..ses, £1,680. At the beginning of 1e57 he
was in a deficiency of £742.
Mr. Pennell, tke official assignee, reports that the books
tad been well kept with the exception of the cash-book. As
in the majority of cases that came before this court, the
ssh-book was defective. Entries to the amount of £2,810
lead had to be male since the bankruptcy; but these items
lied teen chiefly recorded in his o'her books, so that all the
statements in the balance-sheet were corroborated with the
excerion of
Mr. carth, on bebollof the a'signees, offlred n 3 opposi-
tion.

Mr. Simpson, for the bankrupt, stated that he had suffered
t•everely by a kick Irons a horse, which 11,! received while
attending A sale at Dixon's Repository. This accident pre-
Netved his attention to business for nine mouths. He had
seso suffered toss by the dishone•ty of a clerk. His expenses
I.ad been augmented by ne advance in the price of liure-
ke .p. All the (Tali:ors were favourable, and recommended
tttat he :It :u!tl have an immediate cart ficate.. _ _

- The bankrupt, upon being examined, sta'ed that he had
.en in business for 12 years as a carman. He commenced
01 £3OO !eta him by his employer.
His Hon mr said Ctat hat the boAs been troperly kept he
could base granted the b.:Lk:apt a first cla.4 artifica'e;
as it was, he might take one of the second class.
IN RE BEEMAN AND OXLEY.

This was the exatniaa ion meting lir the case of the
Imkrupts, who were hup factors, carrying on business in
toe &trout). No recounts had been tiled, and as one of
the buiktupts (Oxley) has absconded and the other (Bee
loan) is dead, it does not seem at all probable that they ever
wal be. It appears f. OW a stat,rneot of affairs, prcpmed by
Blessis. Glover, accountant-1, that t'te liabilities are great,
t.nd the asses about /3,000 or £4,000.

Oxley. not surrencErfPg, .ca; ilioclairoel in the ordinary

IN RE BOON.

This was the examination mce.tinT, in the else of the
I.inkrupt, who was a lacernan iu flanway-street, Oxford-
tt,e, t. 1-lii trade debts are merely £1,327, but his habi-
-1 ties are £5,705 on bills accepted without consideration for
time two notorious Scotch firms, Macdonald and CJ. and
Viallnes and Co., of Cr!mgow ; there are no assets.
_ .

Mr. Nicho'son assigne:,) in his report s'a'ed that
the capital, £lso,was not vouched, the bankrupt not haviag
)rpt any stick account; the liabilities, L 5,735, was only the
enestaeuieg balance at the time of the bankruptcy; the
total amount of the accommoJation bins accepted by the
)'ankrupt fcr Macdonald and Cu. and Wallace and Co. being
rig .tit 1:12,000; the bankrupt bad kept nn cash-book, and
p .yrnenta to the amount of about l',1,0:JO were unvouched.
The prcfirs were not vouched, and the expenses were
estimated. 1-le had passed through the Insolvent Court in
3351, owing E4OO, and paying no divid,nd.
Mr. Poole ( f Pocock and P.:ok), for the assignees, said
!ey desired to offer no cppcsition.
Commissioner—Who are the assignees? Are they in fact
the bankrupt?
Mr. Poole—They were chosen by creditors, sir.
Commissioner (after having read the (!fihial assignee's
sport)—Why, it is all estimated and unvouched; there is,
itt fact, no acc.mnt et all. .
Mr. Poole—The assignee 3 consider it the best account
that the bankrupt can give, and therefore do not wish to
incur expense by u,eless adjournment; but they wish to let
cm Toss now, and at the certificate meeting to examine
into all the questions that may arise up-m that account.
Commissioner—Then, as this seems to be a vety similar
case to that or Sellers, yeu had httter draw up your order in
precisely the same terms as were us.d in that case.
Passed. -

3N RE GERARD-APPLICATION FOR TIME TO SUR-

RENDER.
The bankrupt was a met client of Welbrook. Tnis was
the examination meeting. He had nut surrendered, and
was sated to be in Ceylon.
Mr. Lucas asked for an extension of the time for surrender.
The adjudication had been made on the 15th June. The
1 inkrupt ras then iu Ceylon, whither he had gone with the
can,ent of his principal creditors, to try to realise his estate
there, which was stated to be worth £60,000, after de_ducti
I.lg till mortgage. The bankrupt could scarcely have heart
t t the adjudication yet, and supplsing him to return im-
mediately he knew of it, the voyage in a sailing vessel
would eceupy three or four months.
Two letters were produced from Colombo and Kandy,
rated its December and February last, to show that the
bankrupt was in Ceylon at that time.
llis itoacur said the question was, whether it had been
,Town to the satisfaction of the Court that the bankrupt
v a 3 prevented from surrendering by a "lawful impediment!'
'1 he only evidence was that of a witness who made affidavit
--merely from hearsay—thot the bankrupt was resident in
eylon, •and was unavoidably absent. The letters only
showed him to have been there in February last. Looking
et the date of the adjudication, and the time cccupied in
the transmission of the letters (about a month), it was quite
possible for him to have been in England by this time ; but
she probability was that he had gone abroad with the know-
liAge that proceedings in bankruptcy were about to be
taken against him, vrhich was of itself an act of bank-
reptcy. That he was insolvent was proved by the meetings
creditors ; and it was extremely unlikely that they would
give him leave to go abroad and stay for two or three years.
No lawful impediment had been shot n, and the case must
Irks the usual course. Should he return, he might apply
so have his surrender taken, so as to escape the peaabies
imposed by the act; and this would probably be granted.
The usual proclamation was then ordered to be made.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, Auc 4.

Francis Ward, a surgeon practising at Streatham, stir.
rendered to take his trial upon a charge of manslaughter.
Mr. Knapp conducted the prwecution. Sergeant Bai-
t ntine was specially retained, with Mr. Le Breton, for the
tit fence.

It appeared that the deceased was a young woman,
ruined Elizabeth Hampshire, and that being in the
family way, Mr. Ward was called in to attend upon
Ler, and he did so down to the delivery. It was alleged
on the part of the prosecution that he had acted
vuskilfulty during the operation, and that the death of the
deceased resulted from that unskilfulness. The nature of
the inquiry of course precludes any details being entered
Lto, but in the course of the evidence it appeared to be
v.tablished that the ease was one of a very peculiar character,
and that the unfortunate result might reasonably be at-
tributed at most to a mistake, without the slightest culpable
negligence on the part of the defendant; and upon this sup-
, ieitition the learned judge intimated that there was tact
putficient evidence to go to the jury, and therefore directed
as acquittal.
Mr.
tendance
Sergeant Ballantiue said he hal a host of witnesses
fir
testify to the professional skill of Mr.
at to
Ward, and also to the kindnen and humanity which he
Invariably exhibited towards his patients.
Mr. Baron Bramwell expressed himself satisfied with the
result that had been arrived t., aad said he was of
great deal highert :sat Mr. Ward left. the court with a
repu-
tation than many medical men who bad come before him in
e course of his professional ex
Cornelius Herrington, 49, an Irish labourer, was
.arged with the manslaughter of Danielon.
ltHerrington.
.Mr.:W. M. Best coldocted the prosecution.
It appeared that the dcceesed was the pietoner's cousin,
And that he and soma other men were employed at a job in
Permondsey. On tie day the occurrence took
place the
e creased and same of his fellow-labourers were going to
their work, when they met the prisoner, who asked 'been to
i -eat bim, and they all went into a beer- shop, and had some
-er, and the pi i4oner wanted morn ; aod when the other std
r-,ey ~could not have in-:re. he app€anti to be angry. The
I dl_l;Pn pitviecOed to his werk, and it appeared th,t
• 1 bee" eteetej, 05:bin,,twhiet there WO a lad,lPr,
s ad when the deceased and some other men tad gin? up•li
1 le scaffold and commenced their work, the prisoner shook
Cie ladder and told them to come down and have more
this proceeding the ladder
i eer. It appeared that
deceased,
was displaced, and the eceased.ar some of his
coin_
eyaniona went down, and, as they thought, secured
it, and then atlinild to th9lr. work! no pd.

soner, who had been drinking, and who appeared
to have worked himself up into a state of considerable'ex-
citement, then again seized the ladder, and commi, ced
shaking it violently, and the- consequence was, th the
whole of the scaffolding gave way, and the deceased was
precipitated to the ground, and received injuries of which
he died, and another man was also severely injure t.
The prisoner, in his defence, attempted to mak- out that
the unfortunate occurrence was the result of acc i'ent.
The jury, however, witheut any hesitation, returned a
verdict of guilty. -
Sentence was postponed.
William Barker, the farmer who was convicted at Maid-
stone of the offence of arson under very peculiar circum-
stances, was brought up for judgment at the close cf the
assizes, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment and
hard labour.

The business disposed of on the Civil Side yesterday was
utterly devoid of interest.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—NEWCASTLE, AUG. 3.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock.)
GRAHAM V. THE SUNDERLAND DOCK COMPANY.
Mr. Atherton, Q.C., Mr. Manisty, Q.C., and Mr. Cleasby
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Temple, Q.C., Mr.
Hindmarsh, and Mr. Simon for the defendants.
Mr. Cleasby opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was Mr.
Edmund Graham, ef Newcastle, shipowner; and the de-
fendants the Sunderland Dock Company. The plaintiff
alleged that it was the duty of the defendants to buoy Hen-
don Rock, and to replace such buoy in the event of its being
carried away, and that in consequence ef their neglect of
this duty the versel of the plaintiff sustained serious damage,
to recover for which the action was brought.
Mr. Atherton stated the case. The plaintiff brought this
action to recover damages sustained by his vessel, the Ellen
Dale, by reason of the said vessel striking on the Hendon
Rock. The buoy, it appeared, was liable to be carried away
by northern and eastern gales; but it only required tranquil-
lity of west her to enable the company to replace the buoy on
its being washed away. The alleged mischief to plaintiffs
vessel, in consequence of there being no buoy on this rock,
took place on the 17th of March last. The buoy had been
washed away somewhere about the autumn of 1857, and had
not been replaced, 81 that for the whole intervening period
the company would appear to have been neglecting. their
duty. The Ellen Dale was a vessel of about 900 tons,
new measurement, and at the time in question was under
charter to convey a cargo of coals to Calcutta. She took in,
at Sunderland, a cargo of 1,200 tons ; on the 17th of March,
between four and five o'clo^k, she was towed cut of the
southern entrance of the dock, with a view to proceed
upon heryoyage. She had on board a river pil3t, named
Jobling. The steam tug Bee towed the Ellen Dale out to a
considerable distance outside Hendon Rock, and then cast
off, and returned, taking back Jobling, the pilot, and the
captain, who went on shore in search of some missing men,
so that the vessel was left in charge of the North Sea pilot.
The latter gave the order to the mate to set the sails and get
up the anchors. There was at the time a light breeze, but
it afterwards fell, and there was an entire absence of wind.
The pilot had, previously to the fall of the wind, given
orders to steer fur the centre buoy, which was a little further
out. When the wind fell the vessel was outside Hendon
Rock, but owing to the smoke of the steamers, and the
hazy state of the atmosphere, it became necessary to look
fur the buoy, and the pilot then found ;that there was no
buoy on the rock, and the vessel afterwards gralua!ly drifted
towards the rock, upon which she eventually struck.
Soundings were then taken, and it was found that there
were fourteen fathoms from stern and bow, but the vessel
had struck about amidships. In a short time the
vessel struck with great violence, and immediately
it was fiunit that she was making water at the rapid rate of
eight or nine inches in an hour. The pumps were conse-
quently set to work, and the vessel was ultimately brought
back to the dock, when it was found nat she had sustained
considerable damage, to repair which it was found necessary
to unload the cargo, and it was to recover damages far the
cost entailed in repairing the vessel, Together with the
expense of unloading, demurrage, and other incidental ex-
penses incurred in consequence of the accident- that the
action was brought. Tile entire damage amounted to about
2,0001.

Witnesfes were called on both sides. On the part of the
defendants, it was sought to be established that the vessel
ough►, in the first instance, to have been taken much farther
out to sea, and that, afterwards, the anchors should have
been let go wl.en she was found to be drifting. It was
s-ught to be shown that, instead of that she was under n.,
control, and allowed to drift at her own pleasure. Witness,n,
were alo called to prove that it was well known to all the
pilots that there was no buoy at Hendon Reck.
The ktry returced a verdict for the defendants, at tl►e
same time, however, exiressin,s; a hope that the company
wou'd put up the buoy, which was eery much wanted.

DRUMMOND Y. THE NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY.

The plaintiff is a fruiterer and paulterer, residing at
Nt.rth Shields; and ibis was a writ of inquiry to assess
damages fir injuries which he sustained by accident oa the
defendants' Hue, at Pelaw Main, on the 16t't of December.
Verdict for ,ElOO.
This concluded the business of the ASSiZ29; and the court
rose shortly before five o'clock.

NORTH WALES CIRCUIT.—CHESTER, Aua. 4.
• (Befo:e Mr. Justice Crompto-.)

THE MURDER AT LYME HANDLEY.
Henry Bloomfield, 35, fi,rtner, was intfieted for hark):
wiifidly murdered his wife, AIM Bloomfield, at Lyme
Handley, on the 22nd of April last.
On the charge being read over to the prisoner, he pleaded
not guilty in a loud voice, and immediately burst into tears.
Mr. Brushfield, medical supirin'endent of the Chester
Lunatic Asylum, in reply to a quistitu limn his lordship,
said tie prisoner ha-1 been cor.fined as a lunatic since the
comtnission ef t►,e offence, and he believed ha was not in a
fit state to plead.
His Lordstlip having consulted with Mr. Justice Crowder,
ordered the prisoner's plea to he mimk out, and a jury
sworn to try whether the prisoner was in a fit state to
plead and take kis trial.

•
The jury having been empannelled,
'Mr. Brandt (who with Mr. 11. Lloyd, appeared for the
prosecution) teen called
Mr. Brushile!d, medical superintendent of the Lunatic
Asylum, who euposed that fr.;m the 10th of May last he had
had the prisoner under his charge. He was not capable of
' understanding in what ,position be was pieced with respect
to the punishment for the crime te had committed. He was
sill acting, under a delusion, believing, that the act he had
performed was a righteous one ; that his wife had been un-
fsithfil to him ; that he was wirer th • spet i grace of Gud,
and he was wishful of being executed that he rriigltt get out
of thexorld, and pleaded guilty to the charg^, he:icying that
he was Broeen*, hut that by so pieadinz he traw.ht be hanged.
On hearing this evidence his lordship briefly addressed
the jury, who brought in a Yerd:ct th,t the prisoner i 3
sane and unfit to plead and take his trial."

His Lordship then or.:cred, under the authority of 39 and
40 Geo. 111., that the prisoner should be kept in strict cus-
tody during tier Majesty's pleasur..
The certificate under which the prisoner has been brought
to take his trial, certifying he was in a .fit state, bad been
obtained during the temponry absence of Mr. Brushfield,
the medical superintendmt, from, his a;sistant, Mr. Lewis,
and his lordship cen-ured the solicitors for the prosecution
s'!verely for bringing the prisoner up, and ordered costs to
be disallowed.

The prisoner, who had been crying bitterly the thole time
he re►nained in court, vras then removed.

TIIE QUEEN V. TODD.

During the ab,ence of the jury in the last case this pri-
soner, who was on Saturday convicted of unlawfully
wounding Mr. ti. T. Gibson, was brought tp for judgment.
His Lordship obse,ved that al►hougit the state of the pri-
soner's mind was not such as to afford an answer to the
charge, although reduced by the finding of the jury from
felony to a misdemeanour, yet from Equiry it appeared that
the condition of his wind and his inabili,y to bear severe
punishment rendered some tni7i,gation proper. His Lord-
ship then, addressing the prisoner, said,—ConsHcring the
length of time that you have already beei in prison, the
sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for six
calendar months.

Mr. Baron Martin left this afternoon for Carlisle, to open
the Co•nmission, the Chief Baron hating still two causes to
t! y.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—MONMOUTH, AUG. 4.
Mr. Justice Bytes arrived in this town yesterday, and
epened the commission for the county of Monmouth, with
the usual formalities. His Lordship afterwards attended
Divine service at St. Mary's. Mr. Justice Hill, who bad
been detained at Hereford, arrived in the course of the
evening. The business of the assizes began this morning at
10 o'clock, Mr. Justice Hill presiding in the Civil Court,
and Mr. Justice Bytes in the Criminal Court. Tire cause-
list contains an entry of five causes, two of which are marked
for special juries.
Tne calendar contains a list of 29 prisoners, three of vrharn
are charged wi!h child murder. The other offences charged
are of au ordinary description.

CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice 11111 and a Common Jury.)
RUES AND OTLIERS V. MARSH.

Mr. Scotlaud art! Mr. Granville Sornereet appeared fer
the plaintiff 4, and Mr. Smythies for the defendant.
The plaintiffs in this action were three parties who were
jointlyiuterested in a house called Cwm Dws, in the parish
of Dlynnyddsllyn, near Newport, and they brought the pre-
sent action to eject the defendant, who had been for some
years in the occupation of four rooms and part ef the garden
under people who rental the premises of the plaintiff's. It
appeared the dcfendant been let into possession of his
rooms by a tenant named George, who was succeeded on
the Bth of June, 1855, by another tenant, named Phillips,
who took the house for three years certain. The defendant
continued to occupy under Phillips at a renj of £6 a year,
which he paid partly in money, but partly in labour.
In November, 1857, Phillips gave up possession, but the
defendant refused to leave; on the 10th of May, 1838, one
of the plaintiffs, named Evans, who said ha bad the
management of the property for the joint tenants, went on
the premises, accompanied by Mr. Graham, the land-agent,
and made a formal demand of possession, but the de-
fendant refused to leave, alleging that he had received no
notice to quit. He, however, expressed his readiness to go
as sown as he could get another place, provided the plaintiffs
ed
ee r
s,
awmi se It
re
edn to eh ae
alblhsro
aowtudeegdpts
still
iolodt
nr
continuedai
he
would
toldpay
otfo
jhuohl opvheiri
pt
sh,es
reesn'eititstaegtoio;n awnads,
defendant,Bo r June.w
terms
3fr.
s havingm yth
eended
calledon
thet e
stated that in the
month of March rN on
last Edwar,
he
e of the plaintiffs and
joint tenants, called upon him, and agreed to let him the
January, rooms and part of the gardens, from the Ist of Janu t
£5 a-year ; and this evidence was corroborated b
y a woman
who was his housekeeper.

Mr. Justice 11111, ill summing up the evidence to the jury,
said the single question for the* decision was whether
the rooms had been let by Edwards to the ilcfendant, as he
had stated; and observed that if that was really the case it
was extrsxcrdinary the defendant had not set up that defence
when possession vas demanded of him in May.
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff..