The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-13 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco, before Justices Wines and Byles.

HARRIS V. DIXON AND ANOTHER.-FATAL
ACCIDENT.

The plaintiff in this case was the widow of a man
who had been run over and killed by a waggon
belonging to the defendants, and she sued to re-
cover damages for his loss. At the trial before Mr.
Justice Williams the verdict was for the plaintiff
for £lOO.

Mr. Pearce, however, yesterday applied for a new
trial, contending that the verdict was against the
evidence.

Mr. Justice Willes now said that the court had
consulted Mr. Justice Williams, and, so far from
being dissatisfied with the verdict, he thought that
the finding was right. There would, therefore, be
no rule.
Rule refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron,
and Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Watson.)
IN RE WILLIAM CORBETT.-INSOLVENCY.
In this case a rule had been obtained, calling on
the judge of the county of Gloucestershire, held at
Newnham, to show cause why he should not allow
the petition of William Corbett, an insolvent, to be
taken off the file, why he should not dismiss the
petition, or why he should not name a day for the
final hearing.
Mr. Powell now showed cause against the rule,
contending that there was no force in the objection
taken by Mr. H. James, who had obtained the rule,
that it did not appear on the face of the petition
when it had been presented, and that it being thus
not within the form of the statute 7 and 8 Viet.,
the learned judge had no ;jurisdiction.
Mr. H. James, in support of the rule, argued that
the petition should bear the date of presentation on
the face of it, and that the insolvent had a perfect
right to take it off the file.

-Mr. Baron Martin—l do not think so, for then
the assignee would be deprived of his rights.
Mr. James then urged that the learned judge had
no power to adourn the petition sine die.
The Court were of opinion that the ruling of the
learned judge was right, and discharged the rule.

WRIGHT V. MILLS.-A CURIOUS POINT.
In this case a rule had been obtained calling on
the plaintiff to show cause why an order of Mr.
Justice Williams should not be set aside under the
following circumstances :—An action had been
brought against the defendant Thos. Mills, on a
bill of exchange. Judgment was signed at 11 o'clock
on the 28th of May, and the defendant died at half-
past 9 the same morning. Execution was moved the
day after the defendant's death, and his goods were
seized. The question raised by the rule was whether
the judgment could stand, it having been signed sub-
sequently to the death of the defendant in the action.
Mr. Lush now showed cause against the rule,
contending that the judgment was void, and the
ruling of Mr. Justice Williams correct.
Mr. Malcolm having been heard contra,
The Lord Chief Baron was of opinion that the
signing judgment was a judicial proceeding, and as
such must be considered as occurring at the earliest
period of the day, so that the death of the party
could not invalidate it. The rule must, therefore, be
made absolute on the ground that it was signed on
the day in question.
The other learned judges concurred, and the rule
was made absolute.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Murphy.)
IN RE EDMUND O'ROURKE, KNOWN AS EDMUND

FALCONER,--THE LYCEUM THEATRE.
This insolvent, late of the Lyceum Theatre, who
had been in partnerseip with Mr. Chatterton,
applied under the Protection Act.
Mr. Sargood supported the application.
A carpenter named Core raised a question for
himself and other persons who had been employed
at the theatre, whether Mr. Falconer was liable to
them. They were not inserted in the schedule as
creditors.

Mr. Sargood said Mr. Falconer was manager
with Mr. Chatterton of the Lyceum Theatre, and
the latter was before the learned commissioner a
short time ago and discharged. The speculation
had been most unfortunate, and a great loss had
been sustained. Amongst the persons employed
was Mr. Bail, a master carpenter, who was paid
some £2O a week, and Mr. Falconer was not liable
to the men employed. As Mr. Bail was not in court
he could attend on the second hearing.
Core said the learned counsel did not understand
the management of a theatre. Instead of £2O a
week Mr. Bail was to have his salary, and Mr.
Falconer was to pay the other carpenters. It was
similar to a foreman at Messrs. Cubitt's. The men
were engaged, but the person on whose behalf they
were engaged was to pay them.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy said as there must be
a second hearing, the best course would be for Mr.
Bail to attend, and he would then go into the ques-
tion as to the alleged liability.
The second hearing was appointed, and the pro-
tection enlarged.