The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-17 00:00:00

COURT OF BANKRUPTCYr
Before Mr. Registrar Winslow, for Mr. Commissioner
Goulburn.)
IN RE A. ROLFE.

This bankrupt was described as of Dorrington-street,
Clerkenwell, timber merchant, and to-day was appointed
for his last examination.

The balance-Eheet, by Messrs. Hunt Brothers, extends
from Jan. to Nov., 1858, and shows debtor to creditors,
£3,559; to creditors holding security, £1,379; profits,
£1,255 ; surplus, Jan. 1858, £143. Creditor, by good debts,
£1,098 17 ; doubtful, £214 ; property surrendered, £1,703 ;
ditto, held by creditors, £1,227 ; trade expenses, £856 ;
house ditto, £62 3s. 11d.; cash balance, £167; losses, £948 ;
liabilities, £1,026.
The bankrupt passed his examination.
IN RE MONUMENT.

This bankrupt was described as of the Britannia Tavern,
City-road, on accounts by Messrs. Hart Brothers. Debtor
to creditors, £1,534; to creditors holding security, £1,647;
creditors, good debts, £16165. ; ptoperty, 4102; cash, £304.

IN RE DAVIDSON AND GORDON.
These bankrupts, having given notice of appeal against
the decision of Mr. Commissioner Goulburn on the question
of certificate, an order was made that the bankrupts should
deposit £4O each to meet the costs.

MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before the Registrar.)
ELLIOTT V. WEBD.-NON-ATTENDANCE TO JUDGMENT

SUMMONSES.

Mr. Perry, from Mr. Buchanan's, of Basinghall-street,
appeared for the plaintiff, and pressed for a committal in
this judgment summons. The action had been brought
upon a tailor's bill, and plaintiff recovered a verdict. He
(defendant) had not complied with all the orders of the
Court.

A person who attended for defendant said he was so ill
that he was unable to attend ; but
Mr. Perry remarked that ho could call a witness to prove
that defendant was at business on Thursday last.
Registrar—You see he has paid some of the costs. But
I am not satisfied with his non-attendance to-day. How-
ever, I will make a commitment for 20 days, to lie in the
office 14 days, and if he complies with my further order it I
will not bo issued.

POLICE IN2'ELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.

GUILDHALL.

ALLEGED DEFALCATIONS BY A LATE CLERK OF THE
SHERIFFS' CouRT.--Joseph Hudson, late a clerk in the
City Sheriffs' Court, was brought up before Alderman
Carroll in custody of R. Packman, City detective, charged
with being a defaulter in his accounts to the extent of
nearly £2OO.

The officer proved the apprehension of the prisoner in the
Lea-bridge-road on Saturday evening.
Mr. Beard, of Basinghall-street, attended for the prisoner,
who appeared much dejected.

A remand was applied for by the office', and the prisoner
was xemoved.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
EXTRAORDINARY CASE.—CHARGING SOLDIERS WITH
ROBBERY.—Joseph Pace, an elderly man, described as a
teacher of languages, of 36, Old Compton-street, Soho, was
charged.with assaulting two constables, Watson, 135, and
Robinson, 48 C, under the following circumstances :
The prisoner is the same person who sometime since ap-
peared at this court, charging two soldiers under very sin-
gular circumstances with stealing his gold watch, and for
which they were convicted at the sessions, and sentenced to
sine months' imprisonment, and it will be seen by the fol-
lowing statement that he again charged two other soldiers
with a similar offence.

Watson, 135 C, said that ho was going along Portland-
street, at eleven on Saturday night, when he heard some
one shouting loudly for the police. He went to the spot
and saw the prisoner flourishing a stick, and saying he had
been robbed of his watch by two soldiers. Seeing he had
his watch in his pocket he waited till the soldiers came, they
being 200 yards behind, and on telling them what the pri-
soner said, they said they had never spoken to the man.
On requesting him to go away, he struck him several blows
with his fist.

In answer to Mr. Beadon, the constable said the soldiers
were going to the barracks at the time. Ho told the pri-
soner that he could not take the men for stealing his watch
as he had it in his pocket. He made no answer but then
struck him.

Robinson, 48 C, said he was on duty at the station when
the prisoner was brought in. He said they were all dirty
beasts who had brought him there. He suddenly jumped
up and gave him a violent kick on the lower part of his
person, and behaved more like a wild beast than a man.

The prisoner denied that ho had ever charged the soldiers
and said it was all false, but admitted he called for the
police. _ _

- Watson said the prisoner had assaulted. him also in the
lobby of the court.

Mr. Beadon remanded the prisoner that inquiries might
be made—the two soldiers who are now undergoing their
imprisonment having been convicted on his testimony,
their defence being that he wanted to behave improperly
to thorn, and gave theta the watch.

THAMES.
EXTRAORDINARY CASE.—John Carr, a gentlemanly-
looking young man, a clerk, who gave his address, Mar-
garet-street, Poplar, and who is very respectably connected,
was brought before Mr. Yardley charged with an offence
under the Vagrant Act, to wit, insulting two young ladies
named Harrison, residing with their parents, in Totten-
street, Stepney.
Mr. Charles Young, solicitor, defended the prisoner.
Mr. Francis George Harrison, ship-joiner, of No. 36,
Totton-street, stated that he gave the prisoner into custody
on Saturday night for insulting his daughters. He told
him what his children said of him, and said, " You rascal,
you have been insulting my children."
The prisoner—I hope you will forgive me. I think I
must be mad. The prisoner's clothes were in disorder, and
convinced him of the truth of what his children had said.
Miss Eliza Harrison and Emily Sarah Harrison, the
daughters of the last witness, aged 10 and 12, deposed to
the offensive conduct of the prisoner in Belgrave-street,
Stepney, on Saturday evening, when he improperly exposed
the back of his person to them.
Mr. Young would admit the prisoner had committed the
offence charged against him. The young man was subject
to aberration of intellect, owing to his mother, when she
was pregnant with him, having been frightened.
Mr. Yardley must say this offence was more like a freak
of madness than anything else, but it must be suppressed.
Mr. Bowkett, & surgeon, and a brother of the prisoner,
both deposed to eccentricities and absence of mind on the
part of the prisoner, who had also particular views relating
to food, and did not take sufficient food to fill out the mus-
cular system. The prisoner also studied too much.
Mr. James Guy, a pilot, met the prisoner a short time
before he committed the offence now charged against him,
and ho looked vacant and stupid.
Mr. Yardley said the whole of the evidence tende4 to
negative the intention to insult the girls in the words of
the Act of Parliament. The act was done in ft fit 'of tab-
sence of mind. He should, therefore, discharge the pri
soner, but he must recommend his friends and relatives to
,look well after him.

Jeffreys told him that such a step would be his ruin, as he
had stated himself td be a bachelor ; and so, after some
r discussion, they came to terms, Jeffrey-8 giving his father-
in-law £5O. On another occasion he gave him £lOO, and
had also made several presents to his sons, who paid him
visits from time to time. Mrs. Jeffreys went to see him
in 1839, but though they did not agree very well, and
Mrs. Jeffreys returned from Keelby on the same day, he
made her various small allowances during the remainder of
his life. Mr. Bell died in 1843, but his son-in-law sur-
vived till the 31st of October, 1857, when he expired rather
suddenly at Harrowgate, leaving property to the amount of
between £2,000 and £3,000. Before his death he had ex-
pressed his determination to make his sons his heirs, but he
made no will.
In support of Dr. Phillimore's statement on Saturday
Mrs. Jeffreys was examined at some length. She was cross-
examined by Mr. K. Macaulay, Q.C., and excited some
amusement by the air of determined hostility which she
opposed to the questioning of the learned counsel. Mr.
Malcolm Kerr, a member of the Scotch bar, proved that
such a proceeding as had been sworn to by the witnesses of
the signing of the certificate (which was produced) would
constitute a valid marriage according to the law of Scot-
land. Other evidence was likewise produced to show that
Mrs. Jeffreys was the wife of the deceased by habit and
repute.
Mr. Macaulay, on behalf of the next of kin, commented
on the strong improbability of circumstances which had been
sworn to as surrounding the alleged marriage. But for the
document which had been put forward as a certificate the
fact of the marriage would stand on very doubtful grounds ;
and as for the question of habit and repute, he should pro-
duce ample evidence to show that there had been no such
uniform and consistent repute as was required to impart the
character of marriage to a connexion between two parties
whose union had not been regularly solemnised. Coining
back to the alleged certificate, he was instructed, that it had
never been heard of till it was produced in the court. That
circumstance was not in favour of the parties who brought it
forward. He should be able to show that there had never
been in Dumfries any "Bailie Thomas Smith," which was
one of the signatures appended to the certificate. There
was, however, William Smith, who seemed to be the party
intended. There was also this singular fact. The alleged
wife stated that her first child was born about eight or nine
months after her marriage, which, if it had ever taken
place at all, must have been on the 24th of January, 1811.
The period at which a first child was born after its
mother's marriage was a matter about which it was almost
impossible for her to make any mistake ; but he had in his
hand the register of the son John's birth, which seemed
quite inconsistent with the witness's statement. It was as
follows :—" Births and Baptisms in 1813. John William
Jeffrey, acknowledged son of George Jeffrey and Clarinda
Bell, born 15, baptised Nov. 15." He was informed
that this was the manner in which it was usual in Scotland
to enter the births of illegitimate children whose paternity
was acknowledged. The deceased, it would also be shown,
had always repudiated anything like a marriage with Cla-
rinda Bell, and no attempt to establish one had been made 1
during his lifetime.
At this stage of the proceedings the court rose.