The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-25 00:00:00

SEWERS.

The bye-laws proposed relating to this subject
are :

"1. That the following formalities shall be observed
by persons wishing to branch sewers into main or other
sewers, and by persons proposing to branch drains into
main sewers.

"2. All persons wishing to make or branch a sewer
either into a sewer vested in the Metropolitan Board of
Works, or into a sewer vested in any vestry or district
board, shall, in the first instance, lay the plans and sec-
tions relating thereto before, and apply for the sanction
of, the vestry or district board in which such last-mer.
tioned sewer shall be situate, and no such sewer shall be
begun to be made until the sanction of such vestry or
board shall have been given.
" 3. Before any vestry or district board shall sanction
the construction of any such sewer, they shall submit the
plans and sections thereof, when the same shall have
been approved by them, to the Metropolitan Board of
Works for their sanction, in the same manner as if such
sewer were proposed to be constructed by such vestry or
district board.

" 4. All persons wishing to make or branch any drain
into a sewer yeLted in the Metropolitan Board of Works
shall, seven days before commencing any works for that
purpose, submit a proper plan and description in refer-
ence thereto before, and apply in writing for the sanction
of, the vestry or district board in which such sewer shall
be situate, and no such work shall be commenced until
the sanction Of the said vestry or district board shall
have been given." a

In consequence of the approaching elections the
board, at its rising, adjourned until next Friday
week.

LAW IN, TELLIGENC E.—March 24.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Murphy.)
IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES COGHLIN.
In this case the rule in reference to the racehorse
Gemma di Vergy came on for argument. The in-
solvent took the benefit of the act in 1855, when
his debts were stated to be 19,0001. Latterly he
had, in a trial, " Coghlan v. Le Mert," proved that
he Was owner of the horse, and Mr. Ford came to
the court and obtained a rule on Messrs. Herries,
the bankers, to hold and retain moneys in their
hands, and on Mr. Joseph Dawson, to hold and re-
tain the horse Gemma di Vergy, which was worth
about 2,0001. An application was made to expedite
the hearing of the rule, as the horse was entered to
run on Wednesday and Thursday, and Mr. Dawson
refused to allow the horse to run pending the rule,
which on an affidavit was ordered to be heard
to-day.
Mr. Sargood appeared to show cause for Mr.
Coghlan. Mr. Nichols moved to make the rule
absolute. Mr. Reed appeared for a creditor, and
on an objection being taken his application was re-
served to the rising of the court.
Mr. Stirgood asked the court to discharge the
rule with costs, as unfounded and vexatious. After
commenting on the affidavit of Mr. Ford he read a
short affidavit of Mr. Coghlan, that he was not the
sole owner of Gemma di Vergy, and a discussion
arose as to whether the rule could be made absolute.
Mr. Nichols submitted that the court could en-
force the rule. Without impugning the affidavit of
Mr. Coghlanthe name or names of the other owners
should be stated.
Mr. Sargood said he 'had full affidavits on the
subject, but, wished to avoid going into the matter.
He showed from several affidavits that Mr. Coghlan
owed upwards of 2,0001., and as 2,0001. was the
alleged value of Gemma di Vergy it was submitted
that a full answer had been given to the rule.
Mr. Nichols wished Mr. Coghlan and Mr. Row-
son to be examined viva voce. The latter had wade
no affidavit, and for aught which appeared Mr.
Coghlan might have drawn ow large sums from his
bankers, and had other means of payment beyond
Gemma di Vergy.
Mr. Sargood proved by Mr. Coghlan's affidavit
that he had 371. in his banker's hands when the
rule was obtained. An affidavit was prepared in
court, and in which Mr. Coghlan stated that he bad
no other property in the.hands of others except two
hors-s of nominal value.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy consulted the Chief
Commissioner: t hey agreed the parties were confined
to the terms of the rule, which in his opinion had
been fully/answered. His Honour referred to the
ca-e of Mr. Chas. Mathews, in which a similar ap-
plication had been made. lie ordered the rule to
be discharged, but without costs.
At five o'clock Mr. Sargood said he had beard
that no application was to be made by Mr. Reed,
and he had to ask that notice might be given to
Messrs. Lewis and Lewis of any application.
Mr. Reed said it was postponed fur further in-
formation.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy saki he had evidence
before him of debt=, and he should not grant any
application on the state of facts which had been
disclosed to him.
The rule in the other case was discharged.