The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-29 00:00:00

Mr. CHING moved for an injunction to restrain
certain persons upon whom a bill of exchange had
been drawn from accepting it, under the following
circumstances :—lt was stated in the affidavits filed
in support of the motion, that the bankrupt, who
carried on business at Gosport, had, shortly before
his bankruptcy, shipped a quantity of lace, silks,
and other goods, for the United States, where they
were sold by auction, under his direction, by his
brother, William Heath, and produced a sum of
875/. The affidavits also stated that the brother,
William, had received for this sale a bill payable in
London, and that the merchants on whom it was
drawn were now about to accept it, and thereby en-
able Heath to obtain the proceeds, to the injury of
his creditors, unless the intended acceptance were
at once restrained from so doing by an injunction of
the Court.

The LORD CHANCELLOR asked Mr. Ching what
authority he had for the application.
Mr. Cum; had not brought any authorities
with him.

The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the motion
was made on the strength of an injunction which he
granted the other day, on the application of an offi-
cial assignee of a bankrupt's estate, to restrain par-
ties from selling by auction; but assignees had now
such extensive powers, that he confessed he had
granted that injunction with great reluctance, and
solely in consequence of the authority of the
respectable Commissioner, who seemed to feel that
it was necessary. As no motion had yet been made
to dissolve that injunction, Mr. Ching might take
that which he now applied for.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 28.

KIRK V. STICKIVOOD.

This was an action by the overseer of the parish
of St. Mary, Whitechapel, on a note of hand for
19/. Ss. Gd., given by the defendant to the plaintiff,
for the maintenance of a daughter of the defendant's
wife. The child, it appeared, had been born three
years before the defendant's marriage with his wife.
The defendant maintained her till she was nearly 14
years of age, but she was of unsound mind, and be-
came so violent in her conduct, that he could no
longer keep her under his roof, and he turned her
out to be supported by the parish. An order of
Justices was subsequently obtained to compel the
defendant to pay for the child's maintenance.
He, however, refused to pay, and was indicted for
disobedience to the order, convicted, and imprisoned
in Coldbath-fields. The beadle of the parish then
called on the defendant's wife, who, in order to get
her husband liberated, paid 20/. for law expenses,
and agreed to pay the 19/. 8:q. Gd., the amount of
the charge for the child's maintenance. She then
accompanied the beadle to the prison where her
husband was confined, and where he gave the note
in question. It was now contended on the part of
the defendant that he was not liable, first, because
the child was not his, and, secondly, because the
note had been given under illegal duress, there hav-
ing been no sentence of imprisonment. Verdict
for the plaintiff, 19/. Bs. Gd.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 28.

EP-PARTE GRANGER IN RE CHAMBERS AND OTHERS.

The only point worthy of notice in this case was,
that the commission was sued out so long ago as
1812, and the petition to supersede it now before
the Court was not presented till the present year.
The prayer of the petition was founded upon the
allegation of there being no petitioning creditor's
debt, and of fraud in issuing the commission on the
part of the respondents, who set up as bankers, in
partnership with the petitioner, at Collumpton in
1810. The greater part of the parties concerned in
issuing the commission were dead.
His Honour Sir GEORGE ROSE said, would it be
just to call upon parties to answer to transactions
which had taken place so long back that all the wit-
nesses they might have caVerl were dead ? No
circumstances that he could imagine would justify
them in doing so, and certainly those detailed in the
petition would not.
The COURT, without calling on the respondents
for an answer, dismissed the petition, on the ground
that the petitioner was as well acquainted with the
frauds, if they were so, of which he complained, 20
years ago, as he was now.