The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-07 00:00:00

LA IV INTE.

DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Ciancellor.)

DAVISON V. ROIENSON.

Plaintiff filed his bill to set aside a mortgage security for
£356 granted for a subsisting debt, but in contemplation of
bankruptcy.

The Lord Chancellor directed an issue to be tried lax
circuit before Mr. Justice Byles, bat at the trial the prin•
cipal witnesses—the bankrupt and his brother—were not
examined.

His Lordship declined to dispose of the case on the evi-
dence before him, and ordered the bankrupt and his brother,
and other witnesses, to appear in his Lordship's Court and
be publicly examined and cross-examined on the affidavits
produced and validity of the mortgage-deed in question, on
the first Tuesday of next term.

(Befote Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.)
PETITION.-IN RE CURTIS.

The contention in this ease is between the husband and
wife, separated by divorce, for the custody of their children.
Both parties claim the exclusive custody of the children—
the wife alleging cruelty on the part of the husband. The
case has occupied the attention of the Court several days.
At the conclusion of the arguments the Vice-Chancellor
dismissed the petition, the effect of which will be to give
the custody of the children to the husband.

POLICE INTELLIGE;VCE.-(THIS DAY.

MANSION-HOUSE.

ROOM FOE THE FIRE ENGINE-J. Ramsay was
charged with assaulting a police constable. It appeared
that last evening a fire broke oat in St. Mary Woolnoth
Church, Lombard-street, and that Sergeant Kibblewhite,
17, was employed, to clear the road for the engines—that
there was a great crowd, and the officers had a most arduous
duty, as the people pressed close up to the church railings.
Accordingsto the officer's statement the prisoner refused to
make way, and upon being remonstrated with created a
great disturbance, and assaulted the officer. He was then
taken into custody:

Mr. Braidwood said he knew there was a great crowd,
and that the fire brigade were always much obliged to the
officers for their exertions. Very frequently, were it not
for the energy of the police, many serious accidents would
occur.

To answer this, Mr. Barclay, jun., chemist, of Little-
street, said that he witnessed the whole affair, and the
officer was solely to blame. In fact, the crowd was not so
dense as had been described. The officer seized hold of the
prisoner and flung him about like a shuttlecock. So much
did witness consider the officer in fault that he went to the
station-house and bailed the man out. Mr. Barclay added
that he had been very scurvily treated in the station-house.
He and some more gentlemen who went to give evidence
had to wait an hoar and a half at that 'place for the in-
spector, and were told that if they did not go away they,
too, would be.locked. up.

Another witness corroborated Mr. Barclay, and said that
he saw all that took place in the crowd.

The Lord Mayor—How did you see through the crowd ?
Witness—l saw over the crowd.
The Lord Mayor—Well, you might have done so, as you
have the advantage over me.
The Lord Mayor said it was very kind of the witnesses
to come up, but he was of opinion that the defendant was
liable. In this case of emergency the police had orders to
clear the road, and they were bound to use, if necessary,
gentle force. It is absolutely necessary that, in the case of
a fire, the officers should not be obstructed. In this case
defendant had, putting the insult out of the question, re-
sisted the officer, and for this offence he would be fined 20s.
and costs. For the sake of humanity, in the case of a fire,
the duty of bystanders should be to clear the road for the
engines, and to assist the officers, as much valuable pro-
perty, and even lives, might be lost. He would add that
he believed the witnesses called by defendant had conscien-
tiously given their testimony.
The fine was paid.