The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-12 00:00:00

Witness—l have established myself as a merchant.

Mr. Hawkins—Pid you not come from China to prose-
cute a large claim against the Government for something
like £lBO,OOO ?
Witness—No, sir. If you want to know about the claim,
I'll tell you. The Government after the first war with
China received a large sum to compensate the losses of the

merchants, and I considered I had a claim, and I made it.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—What is the amount of your claim ?
Witness—Fity-two thousand dollars.
Mr. Hawkins—Did you ever consult Mr. Gourley pro-
fessionally as a medical man ?
Witness—Never.
Mr. Hawkins—Never I Was there not a member of your
household—l need not mention her name—that required a
little medical attendance ? (Laughter.)
Witness—Yes. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—When that attendance ceased was there
not another member of the fatally ? (Laughter.)

W itness— Yes.
Mr. Hawkins—A little baby was born there?
Witness—Yes.
Mr. Hawkins—Did you not ask Mr. Gourley to give the
lady medicine ?
Witness—He may have given her something for the
bowel complaint. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—Yes, but after the baby was born the
bowel complaint ceased, did it not ? (Laughter.)
Witness—Yes. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—You got your spoons back, did you not ?
Witness—Yes. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—Andyour watch too ?
Witness—Yes, after 17 days.
Mr. Hawkins—Did you not press the defendant for in-
troductions to influential parties ?
Witness—l never asked him to introduce me to any

members of the Government. He said he had got friends
in high quarters, from the Duke of Cambridge downwards,
and that Lord Derby was his relation. (Laughter.) I
was a stranger in the country, and I thought he was one
of the great men of the land. (Laughter.)
Mr. Robinson—Did you know that the defendant was a
medical man?
Witness—No.
Mr. Robinsbn—Who attended the lady on the occasion
of her confinement ?

Witness—Mr. Gardener—Here's his bill and I paid it.
;Laughter.)

Mr. F. Cator said he obtained the payment of the bill
from the plaintiff by process of law.
Mr. Hawkins then addressed the jury for the defendant

in a very humorous speech, and concluded by calling
Mr. Gourley, who said—l am a consulting surgeon, and
reside at St. John's-wood. I first knew the plaintiff in 1856.
I called at the house where he resided first for the purpose
of inquiring for a friend of mine who formerly lived there.
He told me he did not know where he had gone, but he
would endeavour to find out for me if I called again. He

then invited me into his drawing-room. A friendship
ensued, and he told me he had 'a claim on the Government
for £lBO,OOO. In October, 1856, he asked me to see his
man-servant professionally. I attended. He then wrote to
me stating that there was something the matter with his
maidservant, and wished me to attend her. I attended her
up to her confinement. (Laughter.) I attended her afterward s
for about 9or 10 months. She lived in Rustomjee's house.
My house was two miles from plaintiff's house. He used
to press me to visit him. He said I did not come often
enough—that the house was hell fire :when I was not
there. He could only get peace when I was there.
(Laughter,) I procured him an introduction to the Earl of
Clarendon. I was acquainted with the Duke of Cambridge,
and through my exertions he obtained interviews with
some of the other Cabinet Ministers. We had some talk on
money matters, and he said when he got his claim settled I
should have 1500. When the bill was drawn it was for
mutual accommodation, as the plaintiff was in want of
funds. The witness then explained the circumstances
attending the drawing of the bill. Touching the spoons, I
happened to have a few friends to see me then, and I
borrowed the spoons ; but there is not the slightest founds
tion for the supposition that a relative of mine ever had
them. (Laughter.) With respect to his watch, I did
borrow it, but it was because I had had an accident with my
own. I have four watches. (Laughter.) One of the watches •
was given to my grandmother by a relative of Lord
Derby's. (Laughter.) •

Mr. Robinson—Then the watch, And not yourself, is the
relative of Lord Derby. (Laughter.)
Counsel for both parties having addressed the jury,

The Learned Judge summed up the evidence. and

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RE C. J. ROWS.

This bankrupt was described as a hotel-keeper, of the
White Horse Inn, Uxbridge, and to-day was appointed
for his last examination.

The balance-sheet, by Mr. March, Basinghall-street,
shows a surplus, July, 1856, £221 14s. Debtor to unsecured
creditors, £3,153 10s. ; to ditto holding security, £2,287.
Profit, £682. Creditor by debtors, good, £62; doubtful, £34
10s. Property, £366 ; property held by creditors, £3,000.
Losses, £1,352. Trade expenses, £941.
The bankrupt passed—Mr. Pook, for the assignees, not
opposing.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)

IN RE ROOK.
This bankrupt was described as of Gibraltar-walk,
Bethnal-green, and to-day was appointed for consideration
of his certificate.
Mr. Pook, from the office of Mr. Riches, Coleman-street,
appeared for the assignees, and said that the bankrupt had
been in confinement since June last on a creditor's debt,
and had not been able to assist the creditors in getting in his
estate, and he was anxious for an adjournment to enable him
to do so.
His Honour said that it was not only the bankrupt's duty
towards his creditors, but to his owu advantage, for hiut to

do so ; but as it was with the consent of the bankrupt and
not opposed by the assignees, an adjournment might be
taken.

IN RE DUNHAM.

This bankrupt was described as of the Doctor Johnson
Tavern, Fleet-street, and came up for his certificate. There
was no opposition.

His Honour remarked that the bankrupt was before the
Court in 1856, when he owed £1,500, and no dividend had
been paid. On that occasion the certificate had been sus-
pended for twelve months. He now came before the Court
owing £1,606, and, in this instance also, there would be no
dividend.

Mr. Lucas said there had been a severe loss, as the
bankrupt had expended £1,400 on the premises and he
could only obtain £4OO or £.500.
His Honour said the bankrupt, after his first failure,
began with a deficiency of £l9, and incurred his present
debts in seven months. There could be no pretence for his
entering into such a speculation ; and had there been any
opposition he would not have granted protection. He (his
Honour) was of opinion that it was a fraud on the credi-
tors, and very disgraceful. The certificate—third class—
would be suspended for 12 months from July, with pro-
tection.

JUDGMENTS ADJOURNED.
In the cases of J. Levy, merchant at various places in
England and abroad, and in that of G. Thomas, of Mont-
pelier-street, Walworth, the judgments were adjourned.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)

_ .
AUCTION SALES,-IMPORTANT TO WINE MERCHANTS.'

LINTOTT V. NORRIS.

In this case plaintiff is a wine merchant, and defendant
is an auctioneer and wine and spirit broker of the City.
Plaintiff sought to recover a sum of £2 15s. 9d. for damages
sustained under the following circumstances :
Having attended a public sale of some case wines—i.e,
foreign bottled wines in bond, at which defendant pre-
sided, plaintiff purchased three lots, the cases being sold
by the auctioneer as each containing three dozen of wine.
Plaintiff purchased the wine at so much per dozen,
and paid for the same. In one case he discovered
29 bottles short. He now claimed the value of the wine
and the duty he had paid upon it.
His Honour could hardly see how plaintiff claimed the
duty. He should not liave paid it.
•Plaintiff—lt is imperative. The Customs compel us to
pay the duty upon the quantity actually landed, without
reference to what may be in the case at the time of delivery
out of bond. •

His Honour—But, surely, you had an opportunity to
examine the lots before buying?

Plaintiff—No. That is unusual with cased wines. A
sample bottle is produced at the sale, from which, after
tasting, we buy. I called upon Mr. Norris and
stated my complaint to him, and he said that he had sold
the wine for a person abroad, and that I had better summon
the wharfinger.
For the 'defence it was urged that plaintiff had purchased
upon the terms in the catalogue, at all risks. The catalogue
was produced, and the cases were entered therein as five
dozen. Again, defendant was merely an agent, and his
principals were Messrs. Fowes and Edwards, of Mincing-
lane.

Plaintiff—Had Mr. Norris told me that, I should have
called upon those gentlemen, who were highly respectable,
and would have done me instant justice.
His Honour said, upon one point plaintiff could recover,
as he had sworn that defendant did not disclose his princi-
pal, and was therefore responsible.

- Defendant thought plaintiff had allowed a considerable
time to elapse before he made his claim. He should have
examined his bargain, and laidhis complaint within a week.
Plaintiff—l did not clear the goods till some time after-
wards.

Evidence was then given of the fact that the deficiency
was as stated by plaintiff.
His Honour was of opinion that plaintiff was clearly en-
titled to recover. A moderate deficiency would not perhaps
have been objected to. But hero there was a vacuum of
more than two dozen. Perhaps plaintiff should have ex-
amined his bargain sooner, but the defendant should have
known that the cases described in his catalogue as contain-
ing three dozen actually were full.