The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-13 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.

(Before the Mastat of the Rolls, Sir J. Romilly.)
]IAYLY V. DOUGLA.SS-MtDERMOTT V. DOYLE.
His Honour the Master of the Rolls did not deliver a
formal judgment in this ease, but, by consent of counsel, it
was agreed that his Honour's judgment would be arranged
upon tne minutes.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Common Jury.)
TAPLING V. CHILLINGWORTH.
Mr. Sergeant Parry appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Macaulay defended.
This was an action brought by the firm of Tapling and
Co., carpet warehousemen, of Gresham-street, City, to
recover the amount of a bill of exchange for £316 from the
defendant Chillingworth, who had entered into an agree-
ment to become responsible for goods supplied to Mr.
Homan, of New York. Mr. Homan was brother-in-law
to Mr. Chillingworth, and the plaintiff agreed to
let him have any quantity of goods at cost
price , 5 per cent. commission being charged for carting the
goods and taking the risk. The drafts of the plaintiff were
to be accepted from the date of the bill of lading. Goods
were accordingly supplied, but at the termination of the
agreement, the bill in question being unpaid, the present
proceedings were instituted. The plaintiff, in his cross
examination, denied that the name of the defendant on
Homan's bills was merely to be considered a name to en-
able the firm to get Homan's bills discounted.
The case was proceeding when our reporter left.

COMMON PLEAS.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles and a Common Jury.)
SMEE V. DUVALL AND ANOTHER,
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
£56 the value of a bill which he had given for s, quantity of
timber. The plaintiff carried on business as a barge
builder at Sittingbourne in Kent, and upon the representa-
tion that the timber would be found applicable to tne
purposes of barge-building he bought it. He said he
afterwards found that instead of its being new
timber, a large quantity of it was old, completely worm-
eaten, and therefore entirely useless. For the defence
it was contended (that the timber was not so bad as the
plaintiff made out, and that it was quite fit for barge build
ings.

The jury had not returned their verdict when we went to
press.

QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Mr. Justice Crompton.)

The cause tried in this court this morning was one en-

tirel devoid of public interest. The question involved was
whether commission was payable after the charter of ship
had been cancelled.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Gtmlburn.)
IN RE DAVIDSON AND nonnoN.--tuE WEST HAM
DISTILLERY COMPANY.

To-day was appointed for the certificate meeting in tho
case of these bankrupts, described as of Mincing-lane, and
elsewhere, colonial brokers, and of the West Ham Distillery
Company. The accounts have already been published
The bankrupts, it will be remembered, were sentenced to
two years'imprisonment for fraud, which term had expired.
Mr. Linklater now appeared to oppose on the part of the
assignees, Mr. Roxburgh for Davidson, and Mr. Lewis, of
the firm of Harrison and Lewis, of the Old Jewry, for
Gordon.

Mr. Linklater said that the assignees had no personal
feeling in the matter, but on the request of some creditors
and from a duty to the public, to state the facts of the case,
and to ask for a total refusal of the certificate. He then
went into a very lengthened statement of the facts,.which
were fully disclosed on the trial, and said that he would
call Mr. Gordon, who would, he believed, deny that he had
any knowledge that the speller warrants obtained from J.
W. Cole (who was also convicted of fraud) were fictitious
until after they had been deposited with Messrs.
Overend, Gurney, and Co., but there were circum-
stances which would throw very great doubt on any
such denial. He then alluded to the bankrupts having
absconded and did not surrender, but on their return they
were taken into custody and indicted, but on appeal to the
Criminal Court of Appeal the conviction was quashed; but
if his Honour was satisfied that the bankrupts had wil-
fully abstained from surrendering, although the bankrupts
had not been legally convicted, yet this Court was bound
to take it into consideration. The next point urged was
that the bankrupts had concealed a portion of their estate,
being bank notes. He (Mr. Linklater) however, said that
the bankrupts had rendered all the assistance they could
since their surrender.

His Honour said that the conviction under one parti-
cular offence did not cover others.
Gordon was then called, and
[The case was proceeding when we went to press.]

CITY POLICE COMMITTEE.—(This Day.)

GREEN•YARD CHARGES.

A 'poor-looking man, who said he had just commenced
business as a costennonger, was summoned for leaving his
cart unattended.

City Police-constable 216 said—On the day in question
found the defendant's cart near Farringdon-market, and
after observing no person approach it for a quarter of an
hour, I took it to the green-yard, and summoned the owner
for leaving his vehicle unattended, and also for not com-
plying with the Act of Parliament, which directed that he
should have his name painted conspicuously on his cart.
The owner informekl the Alderman that he had only
bought the cart the day he had it seized. He had with a
struggle bought the pony the week previous, and when
both were taken to the green-yard, he was trying to pur-
chase some wild rabbits to hawk about the streets. He had

had to pay Bs. Gd. before he could procure the release of his
property from the green-yard, and, in consequence of the
charge being so great, he had to spend the money he
had to market with. He was in great distress, and
he trusted the worthy Alderman would be as lenient as
possible.

The presiding Alderman expressed his astonishment at
the exorbitant charge of the green-yard people, and dismissed
the summons, considering enough had been paid by the
unfortunate fellow by way. of pecuniary fine. He directed
that the name be immediately painted on the cart.
The man, having given an assurance that such should be
done, then left the court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

GUILDHALL.

WATCH ROBBERY.—George Smith was placed before
Mr. Alderman Rose on remand, charged with stealing a
watch from a gentleman residing in Mark-lane, on the 9th
November.

It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner pushed
by in front of the prosecutor, who then lost his watch. A
moment before the prisoner passed the watch was safe.
The police-constable who took the prisoner into custody
found that the address given was a false one. The watch
was not found.

Mr. Lewis, who this morning appeared to defend the
prisoner, contended there was no evidence against him.
The prosecutor seized him immediately after the watch had
been lost, and yet it could not be found.

Alderman Rose said it appeared clearly that the prisoner,
who was known to the police, was near the prosecutor for
the purpose of committing felony. Tie should therefore
send him to prison for three months.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
CAUTION TO LADIES —Eliza Elliott and Elizabeth Hant-
well, two respectably-attired young females, were charged
with stealing a purse containing money from the person of
Mrs. Macgregor, a widow lady residing at Camden-town.
The prosecutrix said that on the previous evening she
was going towards Berkeley-squan, and had just got into
lisuovor-square, when the two prisoners came up. and
politely Asked her to direct them to the Colosseum, She