The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-21 00:00:00

LOMAX V. JADES.

Mr. Baron VAUGHAN read the notes of the trial,
from which it appeared that this was an action
brought upon a bill of exchange for 1,0001., drawn
on and accepted by Lord Foley, at ten months after
date. The defence was, that the defendant had
parted with the bill to get it discounted, and that,
through the party whom he had thus intrusted with
it, the plaintiff had become possessed of it, and
notice was given to the plaintiff to prove the con•
sideration he had given for the bill. For that pur-
pose a man named Sutton was called, who said he
had received the bill from one Gompertz for 9411.
and a horse, and had afterwards parted with it to
the plaintiff in part payment of an old debt, which
amounted to nearly 3,0001. The witness admitted
that Lord Foley and the defendant told him they
had been swindled out of the bill, and it also ap-
peared that the plaintiff had not received the bill till
after it hadbcomedue.The verdict was given for the
p.aintiff, subject to a motion to set it aside, and a
rule had since been obtained for that purpose.
Mr. SHEA now showed cause against that rule,
and contended that the verdict ought not to be dis-
turbed. Even if Sutton's evidence was rejected,
there was a sufficient case proved on behalf of the
plaintiff.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN—Certainly not, for Sutton
was the only witness who proved a notice of the dis-
honour.

Mr. SIIEE—That was the only part of his evi-
dence that could not be dispensed with, for, as the
defendant (lid not establish any points from which
fraud could be inferred, the plaintiff was not called
upon to prove a consideration, yet he volunteered to
prove it. Whether Sutton was a credible witness of
not was a question for the consideration of the Jury.
Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS was proceeding in his re-
ply, when—
Mr. Baron BAYLEY said that the Court
_thought
that there should be a new trial. He did not wish
to say any thing calculated to prejudice the case, but
it was a material feature in it that Sutton was the
person who gave the bid to the plaintiff, and as
there was no other person to prove a notice of the

dishonour, Sutton could not himself recover the
amount of the bill if it was in his hands.
Rule made absolute.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, Nov. 20.

MAJOR VILLEROY RUSSEL'S BANKRUPTCY.

A meeting of the creditors of Major Villeroy
Russel, late of Brighton, where he had extensive
and valuable household and landed property, was
held yesterday at the New Bankruptcy Court, Ba-
singhall-street, for the choice of assignees, and fur-
ther proof of debts. The fiat, it appears, was struck
against the bankrupt on the 31st of October, and the
present has been the third meeting under the Com-
mission. The property, much of which is situated
in Portland-place, and on the Marine Parade,
Brighton, is charged with a mortgage of 21,0001.,
advanced by the Norwich Union Assurance Com-
pany; and also with an item of 1,8001. to Messrs.
Norris and Son, and of 2,7001. to Mr. Denew, the
auctioneer. The average value of the houses was
considered by the bankrupt to be 1,2001. each, and
one of them has been sold by Mr. Denew as high as
1,.5001. Some proofs having been made, and as-
signees appointed, the meeting separated.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 20.

George Rogers, an Essex farmer, was opposed by
Mr. 'WoomtoFFE, on behalf of Mr. Phineas Davis,
a Sheriff's-officer, from whom he had taken a farm.
It appeared, when he was negotiating with Mr.
Davis for the farm, that he represented himself as a
man of considerable property ; and, ultimately, that
Davis was obliged to sue him in the Palace Court
for his rent. He obtained a verdict, but got nothing
(save costs out of pocket) by it. It further ap-
peared that the insolvent, some years prior to his
having taken the farm, had taken the benefit of the
Insolvent Debtors' Act, which he also concealed
from the opposing creditor, who, being " a sure
man," had he known the circumstance, would have
had nothing to do with him.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS remarked strongly on
the conduct of the insolvent, in concealing from his
opposing creditor the real state of his circumstances,
and sentenced him in consequence to an imprison-
ment of six calendar months.