The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGRNCE.-(THIS DAY.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
APPEAL.-RE THE LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM FLINT

GLASS AND ALKALI COMPANY.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner
in Bankruptcy at Birmingham, dismissing the petition for
a winding-up order against the company. Against this
decision the petitioner appealed to the Lords Justices, and
their lordships transmitted the case to the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. De Gex appeared for the petitioner, and supported
the petition for a winding-up order against the company.
The learned counsel said this was a petition by the
assignee of a judgment creditor, holding a power of attorney
from him and a return by the sheriff under a writ of fi. fa.
of nulla be na against the company for a winding up order
under the 68th section of the:Bankrupt Act, 1856. He re-
ferred to different sections of the Act 1856, 7 and 8, and
contended that if the petitioner, Mr. Frederick Robert
Wright, as assignee of the original judgment creditor was
not entitled in law, he was entitled in equity to present
this petition for a winding up order, which ought to have
been granted.

The Lord Chancellor,without giving any opinion on the legal
or equitable right of thepetitionerto present this petition, con-
sidered that under the power of attorney which he held from
the original creditor, he was entitled to present this petition
either in his own name or in the name of the original cre-
ditor, or in the joint name of both; and therefore the com-
missioner in bankruptcy was bound to entertain the petition
and grant the winding-up order applied for. The act re-
quires that the debt shall amount to £,so—that branch of
the act applies only to debts unliquidated. Here the debts
and costs amount only to £3l ls. 9d. ; but there is an ex-
ception, in the act in favour of registered judgment debts,
and therefore there is no legal objection as to the amount of
debts. His lordship allowed the appeal, with costs, out of
the bankrupt estate.
APPEAL.-DAVIDSON V. YOUNG.
This part-heard trial before the court without a jury was
resumed this morning.
Mr. Bliss, Q.C., was heard on the evidence for the credi-
tors' assignee, and examined witnesses.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn
and Justices Williams, Willes, and Byles.)

THE EARL OF SHREWSBURY V. SCOTT AND OTHERS.
The hearing of this case was resumed this morning.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Rolt, Q.C., Mr. Manisty,
Q.C., Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Harmen appeared for the plain-
tiff; and Mr. Sergeant Shee, Sir R. Bethel!, Mr. Badeley,
Mr. R. Hall, and Mr. Archibald were for the defendants.
Mr. Rolt, who follows the Attorney-General, resumed
his arguments this morning, and had not concluded when
we went to press.

This action was brought by the Earl of Shrewsbury to
recover possession of Alton Towers, together with extensilve
estates held by the late earl. The plaintiff claims them
under a private Act of Parliament, the 6th Geo. 1., c. 29,
and a deed of settlement : and the defendants, who are exe-
cutors of the late earl, claimed them under his will for the
infant son of the Duke of Norfolk, to whom that instrument
purported to devise them.

The cause will occupy the court for several days longer,

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Under-Sheriff Burchell and a Jury.)
WHITEHEAD V. HANBURY.

This was a writ of inquiry to assess the damages :sus-
tained by plaintiff, a debtor, in the Queen's Prison, in con-
sequence of the false return made by defendant, High
Sheriff of Essex, to a suit of habeas corpus issued for the
removal of plaintiff from Chelmsford County Gaol to ;the
Queen's Prison.

Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Laxton, appeared for
he plaintiff, and Mr. Field for the.defendant.
Mr. Huddleston said that the plaintiff was arrested at

the suit of a creditor for a sum of £4OO on the 28th
June last year, and conveyed to the County
Gaol at Chelmsford. A writ of habeas corpus was
issued and plaintiff's removal ensued. The return. to
the habeas corpus made by defendant stated the day of
plaintiff's arrest to be the 7th of May. In consequence of
this return, and its difference with plaintiff's affidavit in -the
Insolvent Debtors' Court, plaintiff was sent back to ameaad.
He now sought to recover damages sustained through the
negligence of defendant or his officer,

Witnesses having been called, Mr. Field contended tlhat
the Sheriff was not answerable for what was done in 'the
Insolvent Debtors' Court, and that plaintiff might have
taken out a summons to compel defendant to amend the
summons.

Plaintiff, who is a magistrate's clerk in the country, did
not know he could do so.

Mr. Field then addressed the jury for the defendant, w ho
was, he said, compelled to trust in a great measure to his
subordinate officer, and he called upon the jury, who mil ;ht
some day have to suffer from the mistake of a servant, to
weigh well the fact.

The Under-Sheriff having summed up, pointed out ti iat
the defendant was liable for the negligence displayed, 3
if the plaintiff had chosen to lie by so long, he could not
claim damages for that.

The jury found for plaintiff.—Damages, £25.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ILLEGAL DISPOSAL OF CONVICT-WARDERS' CLOITHING.
—Ann Smeeth, a tailoress; was charged before Mr. Bing-
ham with unlawfully disposing of a coat of the value, of £3,
the property of Edward King, a contractor for prison. cloth-
ing.

Mr. William Jewell, of 20, Dudley-street, piece' ttaster,
said that on the 10th of May he gave the prison er the
materials of two convict-warders' coats to make up, r old on
going to the prisoner's house several times could n ht find
her at home, and on meeting her asked her where th e coats
were, as they were particularly wanted to complc rto the
order, ho having a large quantity of clothing ready no send
to the contractor, and from the fact of her husband 3 having
once before disposed of six coats he believed these we re also
disposed of. He had to pay upwards of £3O for clothi 'ng not
returned from work-people.

In answer to the charge, the prisoner said she b nd lost
the key of her room, and some one had got in and stolen
them. She had no idea where the coats were.
Leech, 40 C, said that on taking prisoner into c rtstody
she said if Mr. Jewell would give her till Friday she , would
produce them ; but on the way to the station she sa she
would not tell, because it would interfere with he g• hus-
band's pension.
Remanded.

[lt may be useful to inform employers that and Ir the
Fraudulent Trustees Act, passed last session, a worn t in has
been committed this week for trial for unlawfully diF vposing
of property intrttsted to her to make up.]