The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCM.—Jund 2.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

Before the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices
of Appeal.)
IN BANKRUPTCY.
IN RE THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK......HARDING V.
GREIG.

This part-heard appeal from an order of Mr.
Commissioner Goulburn, opened on Monday last,
was this morning resumed. The short facts of the
case were that John Peter M`Morland Greig, cabi-
netmaker, of Bartlett's-buildings, Holborn, was at
the time of his bankruptcy a holder of 16 shares in
the Royal British Bank. A proof was tendered
against his estate by Mr. Harding, the official ma-
nager of the bank, for a sum of 1,2001., being the
amount of the call of 751. per share made on the
10th of January last on the shares held by the
bankrupt, who had been placed on the list of con-
tributories. The Commissioner, on the 2d of May
lash, rejected the proof on the ground that the bank-
rupt had never been _legally put upon the list of
contributories. It appeared that the list in the
first instance, had been made out by Mr. Pugh, the
chief-clerk of Vice-Chancellor Kindersley, but
afterwards signed by the Vice-Chancellor ; and the
Commissioner was of opinion that, under these cir-
cumstances, the list must be taken to have been
settled by the Chief-Clerk, a ministerial act he was
not competent to do under the statute appointing
him (the 15th and 16th of Victoria, cap. 80). From
this decision the official manager appealed. Upon
the opening of the appeal the Court intimated their
decided opinion to be that the order of the Vice-
Chancellor could only be got rid of by a re-hearing
before the Vice-Chancellor or by an appeal to this
Court. At the same • time an opportunity was
given to the assignees of Greig to move this Court
in Chancery to discharge the call upon its merits,
under the usual risk of having to pay the costs if
unsuccessful. This offer they declined, and there-
fore the appeal was placed in the paper to be dis-
posed of.

The Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice Knight
Bruce repeatedly pressed upon Mr. Daniel that the
only way in which the assignees of Greig could be
relieved from the call was by moving under the Wind-
ing-up Acts to discharge the order .of the Vice-
Chancellor upon its merits. At the same time it
was a misapprehension to suppose,this Court could
dismiss such application with costs out of the bank-
rupt's estate, as the estate was in bankruptcy. Any
question as to the payment of costs out of that estate
must be raised before the Commissioner in the first
place, and afterwards it might be brought here by
way of appeal.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce—We are now sitting
in bankruptcy, and we all agree that the claim of
the official manager must be admitted as a proof,
unless the assignees of Greig elect to have the ques-
tion of the propriety of the call discussed on appeal,
which they must do at once.
.The order of the
Vice-Chancellor is a subsisting one until discharged.
The Lord Chancellor—The proof must be ad-
mitted.

BAIL COURT.
READ V. PLUMER.

Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Petersdorff were
counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. noggins and Mr.
Baylis for the defendant.
This was an action to recover a sum of 40i. for
money paid by the plaintiff for the defendant.
The defendant pleaded never indebted, and that
the money was paid as a reward for betting on cer-
tain horse-races, which was contrary to the Act of
Parliament.

Mr. James said the plaintiff was compelled
to bring this action against the defendant,
who was rather_ fond of betting on horse-races,
and, like some other persons, when he lost he
did not pay. The defendant asked the plaintiff
to make these bets for him, and wrote to
him, asking him to bet 8001. to 201. against the
Prince of Wales for the Derby of 1855, 3001. to
101. against Rotherham for the Chester Cup, and
400. to 101. against Mark Anthony for the Chester
Cup. Tne plaintiff made these bets and lost, and
paid the money. The defendant did not pay the
plaintiff, but wrote to him, begging him to ad-
dress all letters of the kind to him at the Conserva-
tive Club, as betting letters did not agree with his
place of buiiness ; and he subsequently wrote say-
ing that be had become bankrupt.
Evidence to this effect having been given by the
plaintiff,

Mr. Justice Wightman said, the facts of the plea
were now proved, and the question, therefore, was
one of law as to whether the case came within the
statute.

The counsel on both sides submitted their views
to the Court.

Mr. Justice Wiglaisman thought this could hardly
be a contract between the parties for gaming. The
plaintiff was not bound to pay the winner; but did
so because he would not be a defaulter.

Letters were put in from the defendant to the
plaintiff; stating that if it had not been for his un-
fortunate circumstances he should have been pre-
pared to pay the bets ; but should he ever obtain
the money he would pay the plaintiff what he had
paid in executing his commissions. He offered to
sign an I 0 U and date it before the bankruptcy,
so that the plaintiff might prove under the bank-
ruptcy for money lent.
The plaintiff, in cross-examination, said, the bet
was made without any commission or reward.

Mr. James submitted that that answer disproved
the plea.

Mr. Hoggins submitted that on the contrary that
entitled the defendant to a verdict, as it brought
the cause within the authority of cases which had
been determined.

Mr. Justice Wightman said, the letters abun-
dantly showed a recogn,ition, and that the money
had been paid at the request of the defendant. The
verdict would, therefore, be for the plaintiff, with
liberty for the defendant to move to enter a verdict
in his favour.
Verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
PAIN V. BATCHELOR,
Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr.
O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Keane were for the de-
fendant.
The plaintiff keeps a coffee-shop in Somers-town,
and the defendant is a costermonger and cat's-meat
seller, carrying on business in the same neighbour-
hood, and this action was brought to recover da-
mages for certain slanderous words alleged to have
been used by the defendant respecting the plaintiff.
It appeared that for some two years back the
defendant, who had conceived a dislike to the
plaintiff, had frequently and in public accused him
of selling poisoned coffee, of being a thief and a
swindler, and of a crime of a beastly nature, which
he alleged that Mr. Paiu had committed habitually
with a Mr. S-. On Sunday, the 9th of Nov.
last, the defendant went to the plaintiff's house,
and in the presence of Pain and some of his cus-
tomers reiterated all the accusations which he had
been in the habit of making to others. A police-
man was sent for and he eventually left. On the
11th Mr. Pain issued his writ Since the action
was commenced the plaintiff's business has gone
down, and his friends have looked shily on him ;
hut as these circumstances occurred after the 11th,
it was ruled by the learned judge that they could
not influence the jury in assessing damages, Mr.
Brandt urging that what took place after words
were uttered was evidence of the tendency of those
words.
Mr. Keane, who addressed the jury for the de-
fence, said that the defendant's language was not
calculated to damage so respectable a man as the
plaintiff appeared to be, that it was mere vulgar
_abuse, and as such to be despised. He then called -
the defendant and some other witnesses, who said
that Pain had accused Batchelor of being a " fence,"
and that Batchelor used no bad language to Pain,
but merely said " Your father had 18 months, your
brother cut his throat, and if you have rope enough
you'll hang yourself."
Mr. O'Malley, in summing up to the jury, again
said that the abuse of a foul-mouthedcostermonger
would not hurt the character of a man like Pain.
Mr. Brandt, in reply, said that if a man indulged
in the luxury of bad language he must pay for it,
and not shelter himself under the cloak of a bleak-
guard, especially when he brought such serious
charges against a man as that of having been guilty
of the most disgusting crime which could be com-
mitted.
Mr. Justice Crowder ;As about to sum up, when
The foreman of the jury said that they were all
agreed upon their verdict.
The learned judge having explained shortly the
points for their consideration, they returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff. Damages, 501.

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

IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF -- RYDER--SPECULATIONS
IN CONSOLS---.REFUSAL OF CERTIFICATE.

This case has been before the Court since April,
1856. The certificate meeting:was held a few days
ago, and the!case was then fully reported in this
journal. His Honour upon that occasion deferred
giving judgment until this day. The main charges
againstjthe bankrupt were—reckless trading, having
improperly contracted a debt with the trade as-
signee (Mr. Warner), and with having speculated
on the Stock Exchange, and so losing more than
201. in one day.
The Commissioner, in an elaborate written judg-
ment, stated in substance that he considered the
charges had been proved—that the bankrupt,
though ho had not brought himself within the.first)