The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-05 00:00:00

the charge, and said that to ask a man in a court of
bankruptcy who was a debtor what were his means of
payment was unconstitutional, and was not permitted.
One such question was asked of a shareholder, and he
said he declined to answer the question by the advice of
his solicitor. Mr. Linklater then referred to the case
of Mr. Humphrey Brown, and said that in consequence
of a speech which that gentleman had made to his
constituents at Tewkesbury, in which he used
words that would convey the impression that he
disputed being a debtor to the bank he (Ur. Linklater)
wrote to Mr. Brown requesting him to state whether he
intended that his language should convey that impres-
sion, seeing that he was upwards of 70,0001. in debt to
the bank, subject to be reduced by securities held by
the bank, and which he (Mr. Brown) estimated to be
worth 40,0001. To that letter the following answer was
received :

" Westminster, March 2.

" Gentlemen,—l beg to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 28th, referring to a speech made by
me-at Tewkesbury, and in reply to your question whether
or not I intended to deny the existence on my part of
any debt to the bank, I beg to say that I did not maks
any statement expressly or inferentially to that effect.
" My complaint throughout the investigation into the
affairs of the bank is, that I have been constantly re-
presented as having appropriated moneys to my own use,
whereas the sums advanced to me were advanced in the
same way a 9 to other customers, covered by securities
estimated at the time by the bank brokers as ample
to cover the advances, I need not allude now to tae
circumstances under which those advances were made.
This forms part of the inquiry now going on, and will
come before you in due course. No one has more cause
to lament the depreciation in these securities than my-
self, and still more FO that I should have been stigma-
tised as I have been on transactions in no way different
from every day practice as between bankers and their
customers.

" I need scarcely add that my observation has no
personal application to yourselves or to the assignees, but
intended to have reference to the strictures so cruelly
passed upon me in various public quarters.- I atn, gen-
tlemen, yours most respectfully,
" HUMPHREY BROWN.

"Messrs. Linklaker and Blackwood, Size-lane."
After explaining the course which the assignees had
pursued with respect to the claim on Mr. H. Brown,
Mr. Linklater assured the meeting that nothing bad
been dune which would enable Mr. Brown to escape a
full inquiry into his conduct, and, if it were possible, by
the Attorney-General else where. (Loud cheers.) But if
he were to tell the meeting all the means that were being
taken for the purpose of bringing to justice all those fugi•
tives to whom Mr. Wakley had referred they would them-
selves be the first to condemn his imprudence. (Ch era.)
The amendment was then put, when only 13 hands
were held up in its favour, after which the resolution was
put and carried almost unanimously, and amid great
cheering.
The following resolution, moved by Mr. FOSTER and
seconded by Mr. P. BROWN, was also agreed to :
I "That it is desirable that the acceptance of such com-
position by a majority of the creditors should be binding
upon the minority, and that an act of Parliament for that
purpose should be obtained, the application for which
this meeting pledges itself to support, and that the peti-
' Lion already prepared in favour of such act be presented
to both houses of Parliament."

A petition founded on the foregoing resolution wa■
then adopted.
The CHAIRMAN explained that the Act sought for
would be a public Act, and would not be passed at the
crpense of the depositors or promoters of it. He had
had an interview with the Attorney-General on the sub-
ject, and a bill would be brought into Pad ament this
session, provided it should last long enough to admit of
its being introduced. (Cheers and laughter.)
A vote of thanks was then passed by acclamation to the
chairman, and the proceedings of the evening terminated.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—March 4.

OLD COURT.

Dr. Jas. Mitchell Wynne, a physician, and Thomas
Tinley, surrendered to take their trial upon an indict-
ment which charged them with feloniously cutting and
wounding Mark Benjamin Benham, with intent to do
him grievous bodily harm.

The indictment appeared to have been preferred under
the following circumstances :—Dr. Wynne held the lease
of a house in Finsbury-square, and he carried on there
his professional practice, and it appeared that in the
course of last year the prosecutor, Mr. Benham, who is
the managing clerk of Mr. Jones, an attorney, entered
into an arrangement to occupy a portion of the house for
the use of his family, Dr. Wynne still retaining some
rooms on the ground floor for the purposes of his pro-
fession, and also a bed-rooM in the upper part of the pre-
mises. There appeared to be no doubt that very soon
after the arrangement in question had been carried out,
and the prosecutor and his family had taken up their
abode in the house, a great deal. of ill-feelmg arose be-
tween the prosecutor and Dr. Wynne, and that there
were frequent altercations and disputes between them,
and that these disputes eventually led to the occurrence
that was now the subject of inquiry. The assault in
question appeared to have been committed about twelve
o'clock at night on the 29th Dec., and according to the
case for the prosecution, Mr. Benham, his wife, and the
family, consisting of two sons and a daughter, were about
to retire to bed, the bedroom of the prosecutor being on
same landing as the one occupied by Dr. Wynne, and as
he was about to enter his room the latter came out of
his bedroom, rushed upon the prosecutor, struck him with
his fist, and forced him partly to the ground, and whilst
in that position he called to the other prisoner Tinley,
who, it appeared, was the doctor's servant, to come to
his assistance. It was stated upon his doing so Tinley
ran up stairs, exclaiming that he would give the pro-
secutor a pill, and with a poker struck him a violent
blow on the bead, and inflicted two very serious
wounds, and, under these circumstances, the present
indictment was preferred against both the prisoners.
The jury, after a short deliberation, acquitted both
prisoners.
John Paul, 62, and Joseph William Hawes, 40, were
charged, the former with having feloniously uttered a
receipt for 2901., knowing it to have been forged, and
the latter with having forged the same instrument, with
intent to defraud the guardians of the poor of the city of
London Union.

This charge arose out of the frauds and forgeries com-
mitted by the prisoner Paul in his capacity of clerk to
the guardians of the city of London Union. It will be
remembered that the prisoner was convicted at the last
session and sentenced to be transported for fourteen
years, and he appeared in the dock in his convict dress,
and exhibited the most dejected and miserable appear-
ance.

The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict
of guilty against Paul and acquitted Howes.
No further judgment was passed upon Paul upon this
conviction, but he was merely remanded back to gaol to
undergo his former sentence.