The Sun.
London, England, 1867-10-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, 111URSD.tlY EVENING, OCTOBER 24, 1867.

BRITISH rOSSE

MONS.

66 68
103 103 k
p OP
5 6

IVO
100
100
all
100
100

68 71

55 65
99 101
100 IG2
109 110

17 18

5 7
7 8
4EO 43)
k
19 21
5 6
3 34
2 3
4
8 9
2 21
4 5
17 IS

18 J
4 I
35 37
2t
6 6
4f 54
2* 14
40 50
5 7

31 4
2 26
29 31
410
376 426'
4 6
13 14

8 10
61 67
110 NO
674 72i
25 27
16 18
105 115
9 7

1021

104
1101 10

1074 f

10'I 2j

881 f

ITIE6.

1031} 2
991
88

IC4j 4

931 4}

Law Intelligence—This Day.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Registrar Roche).
IN RE SIR HENRY CIIUDLEIGII OXENDEN, BART.

This bankrupt was described as of Dover, and
to-day was appointed for the first meeting. The
bankrupt ascribed his failure to the insufficiency of
income. He owes £722 to between 60 and 70
creditors, all tradesmen.
A day was named for the nest meeting.
(Before Mr. Commissioiler Wi11.5.10W.)
IN lIE A. DE LAVIGERIE.

This bankrupt was described as of 26, Henrietta-
street, Covent-garden, general manager of the
Universal Tourist Company (Limited), and to-
day was appointed for the last examination by order
of discharge. The debts arc £233, and the assets,
good debts, £58.1, and doubtful i,415, showing a
surplus of £706. Bankrupt claims £403 from the
promoters of the company.

Mr. Sykes, for the assignees, briefly opened the
proceedings, and then examined the bankrupt, who
said he had given bills for the accommodation of
the company. The directors of the company owed
bankrupt £2OO. He had asked for the money, but
could get 110 answer, nor had any proceedings been
taken. Had never been bankrupt before.
His honour asked the bankrupt if a person
named Guerdon had not inserted some advertise-
ments for the company ?

Bankrupt believed he had.
His Honour—Who promoted the company 1
Who got it up ?

Bankrupt—Mr. Fleet. It was started in August
1866.

His Honour—You must supply a full account of
your connection with the company, and the case
will be adjourned for that pui2ose.
Adjourned accordingly.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Cornmis6ioner Kerr.)

NO MONEY EXCHANGED AFTER TAKEN FROM THE
BAR.-HICKS V. MORGAN.

This was an action to recover 2s. 6d. in lieu of a
counterfeit half-crown alleged to have been given in
change by defendant, who Imps the King's Arms,
141, Houndsditch.
Plaintiff deposed that he wasemployed at Messrs.
Good and Cousens', and he had occasion to change
a sovereign, which was part of his wages. Ile went
to the defendant's, and, calling for some beer, re-
ceired 19s. 10d. in change, the coin in question be-
ing amongst the number of coins given.
Defendant said that he had ro recollection of giv-
ing plaintiff change, but there was a board placed
in a conspicuous part of his liar which said "No
money exchanged after taker from the bar."
His Honour—Have you brought that board with
you ?
Defendant—Yes, here it b. Plaintiff must have
seen it, and he ought to have examined his change.
Of course, if the case had been that of a little girl
I should have paid the mmey, but plaintiff can
read.

His Honour (after looking at the board)—l am
of opinion that the defendart has protected himself
by using that board. He it entitled to do as the
authorities at the railway stations do, and persons
taking change should be cxeful after such a cau-
tion to examine it carefully. If they neglected to
do so they could not afterwxds sue the tradesman,
and in this case defendant vould have a verdia.
Verdict for the defendant
THE CUSTOM AT AUCTIONS -- HURENTZ V. LEAH.

This was an action to ncover a sum of money
stated to be the value of apianoforte entrusted to
defendant for sale by auctbn.
Plaintiff alleged that he told defendant not to
sell the instrument under ; certain price.
Defendant stated that m such limit was fixed,
nor would the goods have oeen received upon such
terms, as it was not the Justom with auctioneers
to receive gools with a licit unless advances had
been made upon them.
As there was a direct caact of testimony upon
this point, the parties electal to have the case tried
by a jury.

POLICE IN TEL LIGNN CE— This Day.`

MANSION HOUSE.

THE AGENT OF THE UNTTLD STATES.—Mr. Wilson
Agar, who, it was alleged, lad described himself as
an accredited agent to the Jnited States' Govern-
ment, appeared to answer r summons charging him
with having detained some wearing apparel, books,
and papers belonging to Join Tuff.
It appeared that the complainant had lived with
the defendant, who had represented himself as an
agent appointed to negotate matters relative to
property on bohalf of the United States Govern-
ment which affected the interests of the late disaf-
fected States, and some tine ago he had to go to
Paris, leaving his wife ald children at Wilson
Agar's house. When le returned the door
was shut in his face. The case had come
before Mr. Barker, at Clerkenwell, but the sum-
mons had been given up because it was out of the
jurisdiction.

John Tuff, a civil enginer, said that he went to
Paris on the 30th August. He last saw Mr. Agar
as he was returning from Faris on the 21st or 22d
September; he was going there. Witness went to
Canonbury, but was refused admission. He saw
young Mr. Agar, who said le wanted to talk to him
before he gave up the books. He ultimately refused
to give them. He said nothing about his father.
He said he wanted witness to meet him on Monday,
but he would not do so. He vent to get information
from Paris. The ledger and day book of his con-
tained entries of some standing. They relate to
Mr. Agar's business. He coxld not tell what money
he had received from Mr. Tuff. lie did not receive
£lOO. The agreement with Mr. Agar was to pay
his hotel aid travelling exposes, and keep his wife
and family while he was away.
The agreement was read, and was to the effect
that 5 per cent. should be given to Mr. Tuff on
giving information, which should enable Mr. Agar to
obtain any monies which might belong to the loans
on the Confederate States. _ _

Mr. Agar, jun., said that he was with his father
at 4, Railway-place. He saw his father last night
at eight o'clock. The books were in the safe in the
office now. They were willing to deliver up the
letters with the wearing apparel. He did not know
where the key of the safe was. lie laid the key
down on Mr. Gould's desk. The books were re-
tained, because it was agreed that they should have
any information they wanted from them.
Mr. Sleigh, who appeared for Mr. Tupp, then
applied for summary process to obtain the books.
Mr. Clarke, on behalf of the defendant, objected
on the ground that he had not yet heard of the
summons, and was not able to give them up.
Another ground was that the books might be worth
thousands of pounds, aid it did not come within
the statute as property.
The books were ordered to be given up, and
summary process issued.

my money as my agent. I never had a penny from
him in my life. I once took out a summons against
the defendant, but he begged mo not to proceed
against him. The defendant took away a piano
and some carpets. A gentleman the previous night
saw me home. The defendant said that as I had
brought a gentleman home he would not keep me
to live apart from my husband. The defendant
was all over the house from one o'clock tid
Ile packed up his portmanteau, and threw it down-
stairs. lie said Le would call a policeman, and I
was only too glad, as there was an invalid in the
house. I did not scratch the defendant's face,
nor tear his shirt. The defendant threw up the
window to call the police, but I did not pull him
back nor assault him. The house was taken in my
mother's name, but wi:h my money. The defendant
told the policeman to take me in charge for assAttlt-
ing him, but the policeman refused to take we. I

at first said that I did not wish to charge the de•
fondant if he would go away quietly. The de.
fendaut said he would go upstairs and get his things,
and I wont up afterwards.

Sarah Cole, servant to Mrs. Spiller, said—•-I was
in bed this morning, and there was a great noise of
persons running up and down stairs and moving
things about. I did not interfere.

By Mr. Lewis—l heard the defendant say he
would go away, and he went up stairs and packed
up his things. Mrs. Spiller went up after him, and
I then heard things being thrown down stairs.
There was a disturbance in the house the night
before last through a gentleman coming home with
Mrs. Spiller.
Mrs. Spiller—Speak up, Sarah.
Mr. Knox—Do not interfere, Mrs. Spiller.
Mr. Lewis--Are the parties not on terms of in-
timacy ?

Witness—They occupy tbe same bed-room, but
I did not understand that Mrs. Spiller lived with
the defendant as his mistress.

Police-constable George Hamilton, 56 C—l
heard a disturbance at the house in Duke-street,
and the defendant came to the door and said, "I
shall want you presently to take a female into
custody, and I will give you £5 to do so." In five
minutes the door was opened again, I believe by
the defendant, who wished to give the complainant
into custody, and she wished to give the defendant
into custody, and as she had marks of violence on
her I took him. The complainant said that she did
not wish to give the defendant into custody, if he
would go away, but as he would not I took him.
By ➢lr. Lewis—There were no marks of violence
about the defendant, only that he had his shirt torn.
I did not see any scratches on his face. I think hii
portmanteau was lying by the stairs. I heard no
cry of " Police" from a window. I refused to
take the complainant into custody on the defendant's
charge. I told her that if she would give him in
charge, I would take him. The defendant refused
to go away, saying it was an unseasonable hour.
He said if I would allow him to stay till an hotel
was open he would go. The defendant refused to
leave, and on the complainant giving him into cus-
tody, I took him to the station.
Mr. Knox—Was the defendant sober?
Constable—l should say not.

Mr. Lewis—The facts of the case are these. On
the previous nigh t the complainant came home with
a gentleman, and the defendant, who had been sit-
ting up for her, felt annoyed, and refused
to sleep with the complainant. That morn-
ing the defendant went home, and the com-
plainant immediately began quarrelling with
him. The defendant said he would go away, and
began packing up his things. The complainant told
the defendant to go, but afterwards repented, rushed
upstairs after the defendant, threw his things about.,
seized him, tore his shirt, and scratched his face.
The defendant, knowing the complainant's violent
temper, went to the window and called police, and
all he did to the complainant was to hold her down
in a chair till the police came. The defendant then
gave the complainant into custody, but the con-
stab!e refused to take her, and took the defendant.
I consider the case one of the most monstrous kind,
and that instead of the defendant being at the bar
the complainant ought to have been there.

A gentleman said the defendant was perfectly
sober.

Mr. Knox—l quite agree with Mr. Lewis that
it is a monstrous case. At first I thought
it was a case of assault by a lodger on
a landlady. The complainant when asked
whether she was not defendant's mistress, she
denied it, but if she was not his mistress what was
she—it being proved by the servant that she occu-
pied the same room as the defendant. With regard
to the assault I see no marks on the complainant,
while I do on the defendant, and there must have
been some violence used towards him, as his shirt
is torn. Instead of defendant standing where he
does he ought to have been in the witness box, and
the complainant at the bar. The defendant is dis-
missed, and ought never to have been taken into
custody.