The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-05 00:00:00

LAW IN TELLIGENCE-( THIS DAY)

COURT OF DIVORCE

(Before the Lord Chancellor, Mr. JusticeWightman, and
Sir C. Cresswell.)
DIVORCE..--KEATS V. KEATS AND MONTEZ UMA.

Dr. Philimore resumed and concluded his argument for
the petitioner in this case this morning.
Mr. Pring was also heard on the same side.
The Court was honoured by Lord Brougham taking his
seat on the bench by the side of Mr. Justice Wightman.
At the conclusion of the arguments of counsel, the Lord
Chancellor delivered the judgment of the court, affirming
the ruling of the Judge Ordinary at the trial as to the
construction of the term " condonation," and finding that
the rule for a new trial must be discharged.
Mr. Justice Wightraan entirely concurred.
Rule nisi discharged.

. An application for the costs incurred by Mrs. Keats in
defending the action was refused on the ground that the
application had not been made prior instead of subsequent
to the trial.

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

THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN SMELTING COMPANY

(LIMITED-PETITION TO WIND UP.)

This was an adjourned meeting to hear arguments on a
petition for winding up the affairs of this company, the busi-
ness of which was carried on at Bow, on the ground that
the available capitaihad been almost wholly absorbed. The
chief facts have already appeared, and according to the
statements in the petition it appeared that the nominal capi-
tal was £lO,OOO, of which £1,380 had been paid up. The
respondents had filed a different set of accounts, which they
had carried down to a later date, but it was clear that the
debts and liabilities had increased considerably, and the
assets had dwindled down to £1 13s. 4d. For the company
it was urged that they held the lease and plant valued at
£1,767, and there were good debts.

His !Honour said that both were estimated, but, at all
events 2 they were not available for paying the creditors, for,
although money might be raised, it would be the destruction
of the business. There could be no doubt for a moment
that the company was insolvent at the time of the peti-
tion, and the erdermust pass for winding-up.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)

DOINGS AT NE-WI-JUTE MARKET-MORTON V. SANDEMAN
. - -

This was a judgment sUMMuns, and tho ease has been
before the Court for the last four years. It appeared that
the plaintiff, a small farmer in Wiltshire, had consigned
some meat to defendant, who trades in Newgate-market as
a salesman (Sandeman and Co.) This was in 1855. De-
fendant was in the habit of sending into the country tickets
notifyfng that Sandeman and Co., salesmen, Newgate -
street, received parcels on commission, the money to be
returned the following week.

A solicitor, who appeared for plaintiff, stated that he had
sent his goods to defendant, who had received the money,
not one farthing of which had been handed to plaintiff. In
1856 plaintiff summoned defendant, and obtained judgment.
Defendant on that occasion pleaded poverty, and he was
ordered to pay 10s. a month. Not complying with this
order, defendant again appeared upon a judgment summons,
and paid 30s. He paid numerous trifling sums into court,
and altogether, up to March, 1858, including the 305., he
paid about £3. Then a fresh order was made out; but up
to this time defendant had not paid a farthing. Calling
attention to the ticket put in, the solicitor made use of
rather strong language in reference to the manner in which
defendant conducted his business.
Defendant said he was not in business now, but was ruined
by contracting bad debts. He had not received any proceeds
from the consignments giving rise to the present summons
—that was a bad debt. He was now employed by a Mr.
Baker, of Newgate Market.
His Honour—ls Mr. Baker the creditor ?
_ _

Defendant—No. Mr. Morton promised to give me time,
His Honour—He appears to me to be a most unreason-
able man. (Laughter.) Why, the debt was only con•
tracted in 1855.

The Solicitor—Yes ; we have actually paid, in court fees,
more than defendant has paid money into court.
Defendant—l am very badly off.
His Honour—You have come here in your court dress,
have you not ? (Laughter.)
Defendant—This is the only coat I have got.
His Honour—Yes—your only court robe, but you put on
a very different dress in the afternoon. Well, you are too
much for me. This is a very bad case, and I am afraid
you are laughing at us. Where do you live ?

Defendant—ln Islington.
His Honour—Where ?
Defendant—Near a church. I have a family of ten
motherless children to support.

•
Defendant was examined and prevaricated very much.
Mr. Chubb said he hoped his Honour would really put a
pressure upon defendant, who would pay- nothing without.
He was served with the summons in a public-house which
ho frequented. This isa hard case for plaintiff, who is a poor
man, and who entrusted his goods to the defendant. He
has constantly to put his hand into his pocket on account
of this defendant.

His Honour—You see ho made a bad debt here.—(To de-
fendant)—to whom did you sell this parcel ?
Defendant—To a Dutch Jew. I forget his name.
Mr. Chubb—Your Honour sees that I have examined the
defendant to no purpose, and he does not give me an answer.
His Honour—This is one of the worst cases that ever
came before me, and I believe that ho has a uniform in
which he appears at this court to support his plea of poverty.
He is laughing at us, and I cannot but say it is a scandalous
thing. Defendant must pay £3 by the 16th March, and I
will adjourn the summons till then.
Mr. Chubb—And I shall make inquiries.

POLICE IN2'ELLIGENCE.-(T.HIS DAY.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

IMPORTANT CASE UNDER THE DESIGNS REGISTRATION
ACT.-Mr. Wm. Wayre, of 96, Oxford-street, mantle ma-
nufacturer, appeared in answer to a summons, for that he
did sell, or expose for sale, an article of manufacture of
which Mr. W. C. Jay, of the mourning warehouse, Regent-
street, was the registered proprietor, and which design was
registered in pursuance of the Designs Copyright Act, 5
and 6 Vic., c. 100, and numbered 114,231, after being
served with a notice by Mr. Jay that his consent had not
been given, &c.

Mr. Orridge, barrister, appeared for the complainant, and
said that in the month of July last a person in the com-
plainant's employ invented a mantle, , the name given to
which was the "Druid," and which was registered in ac-
cordance with the act. Some time after, it was so registered
Mr. Jay found that other persons had copied it, and were
selling a mantle of an exactly similar pattern, and he now
claimed the protection which the act afforded.

Service of the notice on the defendanthaving been proved,
and the certificate of registration put in,
Miss Hannah Salmon, in complainant's employ, said she
went to the shop of the defendant on the 21st of January
and purchased a mantle and paid D. 12s. 6d., and received
the invoice produced. She had examined the defendant's
mantle carefully, and it was in every respect a pattern of
Mr. Jay's; which ho had registered as the "Druid."
The mantles were produced and examined by Mr. Bing-
ham, and their similarity proved to his satisfaction, the
worthy magistrate remarking that he remembered once
wearing something like it himself. (Laughter.) It was
very much like the Oxford cassock.
The defendant said he bought the original at Messrs.
Nicholson's, so that if he was a copyist it was not from tho
original. He was not aware that he was infringing on any
body's rights—it was a paltry thing.
Mr. Bingham said the ladies would not consider it a
paltry thing. (Laughter.)
Mr. Orridge said his client did not wish to press on the
defendant.

Mr. Bingham said he would protect Mr. Jay, and not
press on the defendant. He should, therefore, order him
to pay ls., and the costs, £7.

Messrs. Beardall and Joyce, of 88, Oxford-street, ap-
peared also to a similar summons.
Mr. Beard, of Basinghall-street, appeared for the de-
fendants, and said that the case being of a precisely similar
nature he would consent to a similar decision, but, at the
same time, as Mr. Jay's object was protection, he must ask
that costs in one case alone should be given.

Some conversation ensued, and it was ultimately ar-
ranged that each defendant should pay Is., and the costs
fixed at £4 in each case, Mr. Orridgo stating that it was
complainant's intention to proceed against Mr. Nicholson.