The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-17 00:00:00

IN RE SIMS AND SIMS.

These bankrupts were described as of Fish-street-hill,
merchants, and now came up to pass their last examination
on accounts by Mr. S. T. Cooper, showing—Debtor to
creditors unsecured, £4,021 Bs.; to ditto holding- security,
£I,OOS, eapwar,-Anglist, 18-5-a ,-1207. -The assets are tet
down las7-good debts, £176 ; property, £406 ; ditto in the
hands of creditors, £2,000; ditto in the hands of liability
creditors, £201; the trade expenses are set down at £500;
and partners' drawings, W. R. Sims, £Bl7, and A. R.
Sims, £222 ; the liabilities, which are on bills receivable,
amount to £3,535.
The bankrupts passed.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)

THE METROPOLITAN SALOON OMNIBUS COMPANY.-PETI-
TION UNDER THE WINDING-UP ACT.--EX PARTE THOS.

HAWKINS.
To-day was appointed for hearing a petition filed by a
Mr. Thomas Hawkins, a shareholder of 150 shares, for the
winding up of the affairs of this company, on the ground
that three-fourths of the capital had been absorbed, and no
dividend had been paid.

Mr. Roxburgh appeared as counsel, and Mr. Clarke, Bed-
ford -row, as solicitor for the petitioner ; and Mr. Sargood
as counsel, and Mr. Pope, the secretary to the company.
Witnesses were ordered out of. court, and the learned
counsel (Mr. Roxburgh) addressed the Court on the figures
of the case, saying that if he convinced the Court on that
point, that the capital, or three-fourths of it, had been ab-
sorbed, it would not be necessary to go further.

The case was proceeding when we went to press.

SHERIFFS' COURT.

EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY V. HOLMES.

Mr. Ashley appeared for the company, and Mr. Pearce,
of Giltspur street, for the defendant, who is a salesman,
of Newgate-market.

The amount sought to be recovered was £ll4s. 5d.,
carriage of certain meat to defendant.

Mr. Minnot, collector to the Railway Company for 15
years, said that defendant's clerk had paid him an amount
(16s. 9d.), being the balance of a former charge for car-
riage, on the day of the contracting of the present debt,
but he had not paid the amount now sought to be reco-
vered.

Cross-examined by Mr. Pearce—Witness had applied to
several other persons in the market for the amount,
£1 14s. sd. He was £1 15s. short in his accounts, which
sum defendant never paid him.

Mr. Pearce then called George Mortlock, clerk to de-
fendant, who positively swore that he paid defendant
£1 14s. sd. on the Ist of April, and that amount was the
sum now sought to be recovered. He paid it in the follow-
ing coins :—One sovereign, one half-sovereign, and 4s. 6d.
in silver, and Mr. Minnot returned him ld.
His Honour said the onus of proving that the amount
was due was upon plaintiff, and the agent of the company
had admitted that he applied to several other persons for
this amount. Defendant's clerk swore he had paid the
amount, and plaintiff's agent not having clearly proved his
case, and there being only one witness against ths defen-
dant, he (his Honour) considered that defendant was en-
titled to a judgment.
Plaintiff nonsuited.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

MANSION-HOUSE.

CABBY AND THE LAWYER.—James Lambert, driver of a

" Shoful," appeared in support of a summons issued against
Mr. Hubbard, a solicitor of Bucklersbury, for the recovery
of his (complainant's) fare. The: complainant said that
he was hired by defendant, who was driven to his
own house in Bucklersbury. Upon arriving at this
place defendant got out and told plaintiff to wait.
After waiting two hours, plaintiff went into the office occu-
pied by defendant and was then told that he had been paid,
and that he had not been directed to wait by defendant.

Defendant said that when he wished to alight from
plaintiff's cab he pushed up the small trap in the roof of the
vehicle, and put the fare, Gd., through the hole. He was
told to wait, and was induced to offer a small sum as com-
pensation to the cabman, to remunerate him for waiting se
long, perhaps under a wrong impression. Upon plaintiff
being insolent, defendant refused to give him anything.
In answer to his lordship, plaintiff said that he gave Mr.
Hubbard no ticket.

His Lordship said that plaintiff had, through such
neglect, laid himself open to the infliction of a penalty. The
summons must be dismissed.

Mr. Hubbard—l will now say that is the second attempt
upon me within the last few days.
His Lordship—You are entitled to the thanks of the pub-
lic for resisting all attempts at extortion.
The parties then left the court.