The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-07 00:00:00

IMPRISONMENT OF COUNTY COURT
DEBTORS.

Mr. B. HUGHES asked the Attorney-General what
steps (if any) had been taken to prevent the practice of im-
prisoning debtors who were confined under judgments of
County Courts in a remand ward ; and if any incon-
venience would arise by making the rule applicable to
fraudulent debtors, and not to mere cases of contempt for
non-payment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that since the ques-
tion was brought before the house the other evening he
had looked into the act bearing on the subject, and he found
it was provided that County Court debtors were not to be ha-
prisoned except it had been proved that they were guilty of
fraudulent practices. However, a power was vested in the
countycourtjudges to commit debtors if they did not give satis-
factory answers to questions that might be asked of them,
The subject was being inquired into, and if it was found
that the judges, in the exorcise of their power, had acted
improperly, an alteration in the law would be proposed.
TENANTS COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. GREER asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland,
whether the proposed Tenants Compensation Bill for Ire-
land would be laid on the table of the house before the pro-
rogation of Parliament; and also whether he had obtained
any explanation with regard to the eviction of the Rev. Dr.
O'Fay ?
Lord NAAS said that two bills on the subject were pre-
pared, but it could not be expected that they would be laid
on the table during the present Parliament ; but imme-
diately after the meeting of next Parliament they would be
introduced. A letter had been received from the rev. wen-
tleman alluded to, in which he stated that he had received
no communication to the effect that the eviction which was
apprehended would be carried out.
In reply to Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD,
Lord NAAS said that the bills would be much the same
as those which had been previous!y introduced. He could
not then state in what particulars they would differ from
them.

ECCLESIASTICAL REGISTRATION BILL.
In reply to Mr. LEFROY,
Lord NAAS said it was not intended to proceed with this
bill at present.
MANOR COURTS, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.
The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered and
agreed to, and the bill was ordered for third reading.
SUPPLY.
The report of supply was brought up.
On the resolution for a vote of £2,000,000 for Exchequer
bonds,
Sir G. C, LEWIS asked some questions in reference to
the same,

,
The CHANCELLOR .of the EXCHEQUER said it
was his intention to have made a financial statement to the
house on Monday next, but, of course, from what:had oc-
curred, it could not be expected that be would do so. With
reference to the particular item of 2,000,009 Exchequer-
bonds, arrangements had been made, and it was his inten-

BELFAST SECRET SOCIETIES.

(BY BRITISH AND IRISH MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH.)

BELFAST, THURSDAY.

The Belfast Mercury says the jury were dis-
charged, as there was no probabiliy of their
agreeing, allowing the prisoners to stand out till
next assizes on renewing their bail.
Crown business of assizes finished.

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before' Mr. Potter and a Jury.)
FISKE V. DANIELS-DAMAGES £720.

This was an action to recover £4,000, the value of four
bills of exchange, including interest.
Mr. Brandt, instructed by Mr. Holt, appeared for the
plaintiff, who is a widow lady ; and Mr. Capreol, of Gray's-
- appeared for the defendant.
It appeared from a long examination, that in the year
1850 Mrs. Fiske discovered amongst the effects of her de-
ceased husband four bills of exchange for £2,984, accepted
by Major Cartwright in May, 1847. Defendant was intro-
duced to her in August, Itis ), and entrusted with the bills.
He was instructed to obtain the value, or something.
Nothing satisfactory was heard till 1855, and the defendant
admitted that he had received £3OO (it was believed he ad-
mitted £600) on account. As no money could be obtained
from him the present action was brought. Defendant was
not authorised to apply the bill to his own purposes. Upon
being expostulated with he said he had handed them
to his brother, to whom he was indebted.

Defendant's brother was called, and said he had received
the bills from defendant in 1853. His brother paid him
about £1,200 at the time, but he did not take the bills as
security for that debt. They had outran and were value-
less, but better than nothing. Defendant had had some
money since the £1,200 which was due upon his bank-
ruptcy, and requiring a further advance he pressed witness
to accept the bills. In 1855 witness, through
the instrumentality of defendant, and a Mr. Bunardy re-
ceived £6OO from Rickards, scl:citor to the Cartwright
family. Witness paid Bunardy no commission. That was
paid by.Rickards. Witness paid defendant £456 10s. on
account of the £6OO, and applied £143 10s. to the liquidation
of his claim on defendant.

Mr. Rickards said defendant brought him the bills in
1852, and said he had discounted them. Witness did not
negotiate with him. Witness paid Mr. Nathaniel Daniels,
the witness, £660 for the bills, and that person paid £6O as
commission to Bunardy. At least that sum was paid in
Mr. Daniels's presence.

Mr. Capreol contended for defendant that as that person
had been put to considerable trouble and expense, it was
useless to say he was not to have remuneration. The bills
were not worth £t,ooo, and it was in the evidence that only
aoo had been obtained for them. It remained for the jury
to say what sum they considered the plaintiff was en-
titled to.

The learned Secondary summed up, and pointed out that
Bunardy had been paid commission, which did not appear
to have been earned by defendant.
The jury found for plaintiff—damages £720.

POLICE lIrTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DA E)

MARLBOROUGH. STREET.

PLATE ROBBERY AT WILLIS'S ROOMS.—John Saun-
ders, a respectable-looking man, a waiter, was charged with
stealing twenty plated forks, of the value of £lO, the pro-
perty of Messrs. Frederick and Charles Willis, Willis's
Rooms, King-street, St. James's.

From the evidence of Stephen Mowbray Payne, manager
of the rooms, it appeared that dinner having taken place
at the rooms, at which the Duke of Cambridge was in the
chair, the prisoner was employed as an extra waiter, and
that in the course of the evening his (Payne's) attention
was called by the cellarman to the fact that a quantity of
table forks wrapped in brown paper were lying in the cellar
covered with loose straw. He then spoke to a constable,
and told him to watch near the spot, and when the person
came to take them to take him into custody.
Peskett, 143 C, said that having been spoken to by the
last witness he placed himself in a position to see who
came into the cellar, and about a quaiter-past 12 he saw
the prisoner come along, and just before he got to where
the forks were lying noticed him stop and listen, and then
stoop and pick up the forks and put them in his coat pocket.
He (Peskett) then stepped forward and asked what he had
got, when be replied "that it was all right ;" but on telling
him that would not do, he took the forks from his pocket
aird laid them on a tub.

The prisoner said the forks not being taken out of the
house he did not see how it could be called a robbery. There
was plate lying about in all parts of the house, and if he
had wanted to take any he could have taken more valuable
property. He had mver had a blemish on his character,
and had been employed at the Mansion House, the London
Tavern, and other plates. He had merely taken up the
forks to take them to the first witness, having found them
in the cellar.
Committed for trial.