The Sun.
London, England, 1857-11-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF SESSION—BILL CHAMBER.
EDINBURGH, Saturday, Oct. 31.
(Before Lord Ordinary Mackenzie.)
PETITION FOR RECALL OF SEQUESTRATION.
WALKER V. COLONEL SLEIGH.
_

Under the Scotch Bankrupt Act 411856 the es-
tates of all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the
Court of Session may be sequestrated at the in-
stance of the bankrupt and a concurring creditor.
It had become a common practice for English
debtors to visit Scotland, reside in it for a short
time, and then, with the concurrence of a creditor,
avail themselves of the statute to obtain sequestra-
tion, The present application, made by Major
Walker to recall the sequestration of the respon-
dent, Burrows Willcocks Arthur Sleigh, raised the
question of the competency of an award of seques-
tration in such circumstances. The bankrupt, Bur-
rows Willcocks Arthur Sleigh, Esq., was usually
designed by the military title of Culonel,
but of what regiment was not known. Ho
was editor and proprietor of the Daily Telegraph,
and his only office, or place of busiuoes,
ger orally known to his creditors, was 253, Strand,
London, where he conducted his newspaper. In
his petition for sequestration, and in the statu-
tory notices, he was designed merchant, of 39,
West Campbell-street, Glasgow, and recently of
17, Melville-street, Edinburgh, and the address
lin the Strand was not given at all. It was now
admitted that the Glasgow address should have
been 139 instead of 39, and the petition for recall
alleged that he had lived at these lodgings in Glas-
gow only a week, and in Melville-street only a fort-
night, during May. He had been at Luss, on Loch-
lomond, fishing, and in May and June last he was
at Helensburgh. In July, according to his London
solicitor, he was abroad, and in the begiunieg of
August he was seen iu London. The date of his
return to Scotland is not known, but on the 21st
Aug. he presented his petition for sequestration,
which was awarded in the usual course. In February
of this year he was a candidate for the representa-
tion of the burgh of Greenwich, and in his state-
ment of assets the property is omitted which gave
him his qualification. He has given up a list of 52
creditors, of whom all reside in England except one,
and that one is creditor to the amount of 31. only,
the debt being incurred for printing prospectuses
for a society in Paris for the bale of land in New
Grenada. His entire assets amount to 2001. worth
of small book-debts, and his debts dee to these 52
creditors to 'about 4,0001.
Mr. P. Fraser applied for the recall of the se-
questration, because, before coming to Scotland at
all, he had applied for and obtained protection from
the Bankruptcy Court of London ; because there
was no residency in Scotland proved, nor any
trading ; because there was no assets in Scotland,
and only one Scotch creditor of very small account.
Mr. Gifford, for the bankrupt, stated that Sleigh
had cut all connection with London in February,
1857 ; that, after selling his paper, he went to
France, and left it for Scotland to establish an
agency for this Paris New Grenada Laud Society ;
that he was introduced at the Rnyal Exchange,
Glasgow ; that he went to Helensburgh in
summer, returning almost daily to Glasgow,
like other Glasgow merchants at that time of the
year ; that his business was bona fide ; that he had
lost his English domicile, and that his concurring
creditor was an English creditor.
The Lord Ordinary inquired, Where was he at
the date of the sequestration ? Mr. Gifford could
not answer ; and on the Lord Ordinary remarking
that he had no funds, and that it was a mockery
and abuse of the law to grant sequestration in the
circumstances, Mr. Gifford submitted that the 29th
clauses of Act makes the granting of sequestration
imperative.

The Lord Ordinary said it did not, however, pre-
vent the Court from granting a recall. When a
party applies, with a prima facie title to sequestra-
tion, we cannot know whether ho has assets or not,
therefore there may be no course but granting the
sequestration ; but then a creditor may apply
for recall within forty days. The Legislature
may say, You shall grant it in the first in-
stance, but if good cause be shown it may be
recalled. There may be cases where no objec-
tion could be offered, as for instance, when a man
has money in the funds iu consols, which may be as
well administered here as in London, and when the
bulk of his creditors are here, then there would be
no disadvantage. But then there is another class
of cases—like that of Robertson—where only a
vague description is given. That is put in the
Gazette, all his creditors are in England, except,
perhaps, those to whom the man may owe his
lodgings here for forty days, and his creditors
never hear of it. If the Court are to have no
discretion, then it must be in cases where full
particulars. are given in the petition.
His Lordship required Mr. Gifford to give in
a minute, within six days, stating specifically the
bankrupt's places of residence for at least forty
days prior to the 21st Aug., the date of his pe-
tition for sequestration.
Agents for the petitioner—Messrs. Miller and
Crawford, S. S. C.

Agent for the bankrupt—Mr. Wm. Dalrymple,
W.S.—Scotsman.

- ,
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—Nov. 4.

OLD COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)
Wm. Ryan, a respectable-looking young man,
said to be a cab-driver, surrendered to take his
trial for assaulting Thomas Mears upon the 21st of
September.

The prosecution was at the instigation of the
London General Omnibus Company ; and in con-
sequence of there being an indictment against Mr.
Kite, the promoter and principal of another line of
omnibuses running against those of the company,
for a conspiracy, in procuring and instigating the
above-named defendant to commit the assault, the
proceedings created considerable interest amongst
the friends of both parties. The court was very
much crowded throughout the whole trial.
The prosecutor to the indictment is a servant of
the London General Omnttius Company, and upon
the night of the 21st of September, at about twelve
o'clock, he and several other servants belonging to
the company were at the Lamb public-house, Kings-
land, in the concert-room. Prosecutor had just
sung a song, and was about to repeat it, when Ryan
came in and began speaking to a man name Cop-
pard, formerly in the employment of Kite, but now
the servant of the company, Ryan said to him,
" Are you the man who struck my cousin ?" Cop-
pard said, " He struck me, and I struck him
again." Ryan then said that he meant to fight ;
but Coppard said he would not. Ryan then tamed
to the prosecutor and
.said, " Oh, it is you, Mr.
Mears, you are No. 1," and instantly struck the
pipe from his mouth, following it up with a blow
upon the mouth and another upon the nose. Ryan
then seized him by the arms, dragged him over the
table in front, and fell upon him with his knees
upon his chest. A mob rushed into the room, and
a general row ensued. Kite came in with them,
and said, " You are on the wrong man," and
coining up to Mears, said, " 06, Tom, I would
not have had this happen for anything." Mears
had his coat torn, and Kite said he would give
him his coat, and others, if lie would come home
with him. Kite gave him something to drink, and
expressed great sorrow for what had taken place.
Some short time after that, the landlord of the
Lamb having givenßyan and a man named Hockey
into custody, he (Mears) went up to the station,
and charged them both. Hockey was let out the
next day, at the police court, upon Mr. Kits pay-
ing the expense of the damage done by him. Mears
was for eight days under the doctor's care.
Mears, in cross-examination, said he wished to
prosecute Ryan, but had no wish to prosecute Kite,
and should not have gone on with this if the com-
pany had not caused him to do to.
Mr. Sleigh, for the defence, moat energetically
denounced the conduct of the Omnibus Company,
who bad instituted proceedinQs for the purpose of
crushing Mr. Kite, simply because he had been
successful in preventing the company from monopo-
lising the whole *1 the traffic upon the road where
their omnibuses ran, and they
sought to do so by
fixing a charge upon the defendant at the bar that
they might put Kite upon his trial, which was the
main object they had in view.
Mr. Kite was called, and he
most positively
denied what had been said as to the part in the af-
fair, or that he made the remarks imputed to him.
Each of the learned counsel having been heard in
reply,
The jury almost immediately acquitter) . Ryan ;
and the other indictment, in which Mr. Slegh and
Mr. Metcalfe (for Kite) appear, was postponed until
next session.
This case conclulecl the busines-t.