The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-14 00:00:00

LA N' INTELLIGENCE. (THIS DAY.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)

The court was opened this day at 11 o'clock, but the only
case on the list for that hour was for a proof of debt, which
was, however, adjourned by consent. There were several
gentlemen of the long robe in waiting, but up to 12 o'clock
his Honour, who was the only Commissioner, did not take
his seat. At 11 o'clock, a learned counsel said that there
was a case to be brought before the Court, but it was a
trader debtor summons, which ought not to be discussed
publicly, and he must therefore ask that the case should be
heard in the private room.

A solicitor said he had no objection to any short delay,
but he had an application to make, which he conceived
could only be made before a Commissioner in open could,
and he entertained strong doubts whether he could make it
elsewhere. After waiting some time he retired. The ease
of the trader debtor summons was settled in a private room
by counsel and parties concerned as a kind of puseyite law.
The door was open to see the performance, but no one
allowed to be within earshot, lest they should understand.
This system of exclusiveness is becoming intolerable, and
many cases of public interest are either completely lost or
the statements are too vague to rely upon.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

DAMAGES TO HIRED VEHICLES.-TUCKER V. ROSENTHALL

This was an action to recover 165., damages sustained
in consequence of injuries to various vehicles hired by
defendant of plaintiff.
Mr. Beard, for the plaintiff, stated that his client was
accustomed to let out traps to wholesale houses, the hirers
being responsible for all damages. On one occasion the
horse fell down and broke a shaft, which cost 10s. 6d. re-
pairing. On another occasion the horse kicked in a panel,
which cost 21s. The last item, 14 14s. 6d., arose in con-
sequence of defendant's having cut the panels of a trap for
the purpose of putting on extra locks, and this necessitated
new panels.

Evidence was called in support of this statement, and
:wo coachmakers said the repairs were necessary, and very

Low in price.

Defendant's traveller said the charges were very excessive.
The first item should be 3s. 6d., the second 10s., and the last
Be. In reference to tha locks, they were put on in conse-
quence of some person having stolen goods from the trap.
To prove the overcharge of the repairs, a person who
represented himself to be a jobbing coachmaker was called,
and said the damage done was only ss.
His Honour's only difficulty was in regard to the last
item. The repairs had not been done.
Mr. Beard—The repairs must be done.
His Honour—You get a new trap for an old one. If I
give a verdict for £4 14s. 6d., with costs, that will be
enough.

THE SAME V. HARVEY.
This was an action to recover £1 18s. 6d. under the fol-
lowing circumstances :

Mr:Theard, for the plaintiff, said the amount now sought
was for estimating the cost of building a vehicle in a certain
style, the pattern of which was sent to Queen-street to see.
A drawing was made.
Plaintiff was called and said he was sent to view a car-
riage in Queen-street, and was told to make a drawing of
the same.

Mr. Buchanan said he laboured under the disadvantage
of the absence of his client, who only disputed the present
claim because he thought it an imposition. His client
denied that he ordered a drawing. He would ask for an
adjournment.
Mr. Beard said defendant had availed himself of the
drawing, to go somewhere else for a vehicle.

His itonoiir—Then, he should pay. The case will be
adjourned. Costs to be costs in the cause.
Some discussion ensued in reference to a witness, and
his Honour said he would not be a party to getting up dis-
cussions for the benefit of the newspapers.

TRB LAW OF READY-FURNISIIED LODOINGS.-WINTER V.

EDMONDS.

This was an action to recover £4 for four weeks' rent of a
ready-furnished cottage, taken by defendant for the month.
Mr. Buchanan—l admit, for the defendant, occupation ;
but we only occupied eight or nine days. A portion of the
house was in such a disgusting state that my client and
his family were obliged to quit.
Plaintiff—l deny it.

His Honour—lt is not a legal defence. You recollect
the great bag case overruled in a recent decision by the
Court of Exchequer. Defendant must pay.
Mr. Buchanan—Defendant will have his action for
damages.
Verdict for plaintiff.
Mr. Townley, for plaintiff, applied for his costs, but as
he had not given notice to the other side that plaintiff would
appear by attorney (the amount being under £5), the costs
were not allowed.

THE BULL THEATRE ROYAL BURNT

1) 0 I V-11r,

It is with great regret we report the destruction,
by fire, of the Theatre Royal of this town—the prin-
cipal theatre of the York circuit, and one of
the most compact and handsome theatres in the
provinces. It appears that about seven o'clock yes-
terday morning Mr. Francis was on the stage of the
theatre, and was alarmed by seeing a quantity of
smoke, and almost immediately the private room of
Mr. Pritchard, the lessee, situated on the east side
of the stage, was observed in flames. He imme-
diately raised an alarm, and assistance was soon at
hand. The police hose and fire-engines were quickly
on the spot. In the meantime, however, the flames
spread rapidly en all sides, and it was evident that
it would be a most difficult matter to check their
progress. Unfortunately some delay was at first
experienced in procuring a sufficient quantity of
water, and the flames continued to rage furiously,
and rapidly burnt up the scenery and other stage
effects ; and extending to the north part of the
building, destroyed the boxes and galleries. In
the end, notwithstanding that an ample supply of
water was ultimately obtained, the roof fell, and
the building was completely gutted, leaving little
more than the walls standing. It may be men-
tioned that special efforts had been made for the
production of a "spectacular drama," which neces-
sitated the augmentation both of the general ward-
robe and that of the performers who had to take
part in its representation, and we regret to state
that nearly the whole of those articles have been
destroyed, which will be a serious loss both to the
lessee and the members of the company. The only
articles saved were a few which parties connected
with the theatre were enabled to remove from the
building. Considerable alarm was naturally felt
for the safety of the property adjoining the thea-
tre, but fortunately the exertions which were used
prevented the flames from extending beyond the
building itself. The theatre is insured, but
not the wardrobe, which, we believe, would
be worth about £4OO. This is the second fire
which has occurred at the Theatre Royal within a
few weeks, but on the previous occasion it was con-
fined to the wardrobe, and only trifling damage
was done. The Theatre Royal was erected in
Humber-street, in 1809, by the son of the late Mr.
Tate Wilkinson,
was opened in May, 1810, and
was considered one of the finest theatres out of
London. The receipts for the first 60 nights
amounted to £3,150. Since its erection many
actors who have become eminent in th© profession
have appeared on its boards. Latterly efforts have
been made to dispose of it, but they were unsuc-
cessful, and it remained the property of the Wil -
extent of about £B,OOO.
kinson family. The building was insured to the