The Sun.
London, England, 1857-09-02 00:00:00

LAW INTEL;

I.—(This Day•)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque was the commissioner
of the day, but there was no cause before the Court
during the morning except for audit meetings.

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

THE ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY V. THOMAS.
This was an action to recover the sum of 421. 2s. 2J.
on a bond. It appeared that the defendant, Mr. Thomas,
became a co-surety for a Mr. Langton for the due per-
formance of his duty as a purser in the company's ser-
vice, but on the balancing of the accounts Mr. Langton
was debited with a sum of 841. which, it was alleged,
was due to the company. A person named Fenwick,
aho was co-surety, had paid 10::. in the pound, the
moiety, but the defendant repudiated the payment en-
tirely, and disputed the accuracy of the account. The
case had been several times before the Court, and it was
adjourned to this day that a witness might be called
born Southampton. The main defence was that a sum
of 341. received by Mi. Langton had not been paid over
to the company. It appeared that whilst one of the
company's vessels was at Bahia that sum was paid ; A
party took passage for England and paid the pas-
sage money, but on a consultatio❑ with the sur-
geon the party was pronounced to be a lu-
natic, and the captain refused to bring him
over, and Langton returned the money, but as four
years had since elapsed ho was not certain whe-
ther he returned it to the agent of the company or to the

friends of the party, but the c company had allowed i t in
the agent's account.—Captain Revett being now called,
was positive that Langton had returned the money,
although he had not altered the list of passengers and
fares received. There were other disputed items which
the defendant insisted he had a right to challenge, as the
plaintiffs had not only sued on the bond, but on an ac-
count stated.—Mr. Thomas said that he defended the
action to vindicate the character of Mr. Langton,
whom he had known from boyhood, and claimed
to set off the salary due to him at the time of
his discharge. The solicitor to the company said he had
scrupulously abstained from imputing any dishonourable
intention en the part of Mr. Langton, and he now fully
exonerated him from anything of the sort. Mr. Thomas
contended that there was a balance due to Langton.
His Honour ultimately held that the defendant was
bound to pay under the bond, and he could not set off
the salary, which must be sued for by Langton. Judg-
ment must therefore be for the company for 81. The

solicitor said he would Lot press the judgment until
Langton had had an opportunity of trying the question
as to salary, and he would not ask for costs in the pre•

sent case.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE. —(This Day.)

MANSION-ROUSE.

ASSAULTING A CONSTABLE.—Richard Morris was
charged betore the Lord Mayor with assaulting Police
Constable Hitchcock, No. 644.

The case was remanded from yesterday, when the evi-
dence given was to the effect that whilst the constable
was on duty, in Bsihopsgate-street, the previous even-
ing, he saw some disorderly persons at the corner, one
of them being the prisoner. He requested them to
separate and leave, on which the prisoner struck him
violent blow in the eye, which closed it, and knocked
him down.

The prisoner yesterlay denied the charge, and it was
adjourned till to-day to allow him to produce evidence
to contradict the policeman's statement. He called
John Smith, a porter, who stated that he heard cries
of murder, and on going t 3 the spot he found the police-
man lying on the ground, and a man kneeling on hie
chest ; but he could not identify the prisoner as that
man or as one of the party.
Mrs. M'Manus, another witness, stated that she weg
with the prisoner and his wife at the time of the alleged
assault ; and she swore that although the policeman used
the mcst blasphemous and insulting language to the
prisoner's wife, yet he never touched the policeman,
but that he was struck on the eye by a gentleman who
was passingat the time. The policeman was intoxicated
at the time.
The prisoner stated that his wife had been grossly
insulted by the policeman, and that, upon his going to
the station-house to prefer a charge against him, the
policeman, who had been knocked down by somebody
else, charged him with the assault.
The Lord Mayor sent for the inspector on duty, who
stated in answer to a question from his Lordship, that
the policeman was perfectly sober at the time.
His Lordship, in consequence of the conflicting testi-
mony, discharged the prisoner.