The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--(THIS DAY.)

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

WILLIAMSON V. THE LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS COM-

PANY..--SINGULAR OMNIBUS COLLISION.

This was an action to recover a sum of money as com-
pensation for damages sustained through the alleged negli-
gent driving of defendants' servant. Plaintiff is an omnibus
proprietor, driving his own'bus, and according to his state-
ment the conductor was letting out some passengers in
Gracechurch-street, when defendants' bus came up and ran
into that driven by plaintiff.

A van driver was called and corroborated plaintiff's testi-

mony.

Mr. Beard, for the company, said he had ample evidence
to show that the damage was occasioned by the van driver
running into defendant's bus. The van driver should be
the defendant.

A person named Polt said he was riding on defendants'
omnibus on the day in question. He heard the van driver
threaten defendants' coachman, and subsequently saw him
deliberately run against the bus, thereby forcing it against
that driven by plaintiff.

His Honour would not trouble Mr. Beard for any more
evidence, but found for defendants with costs. Plaintiff
should sue the van driver or owner of the van.

THE SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. DILLMOTT--.

REFUSAL TO HEAR AN ATTORNEY'S CLERK.

This was an action to recover the carriage of some bags
of artificial manure, and demurrage of certain bags of the
same left on the plaintiffs' premises.

When the case was called on, an attorney's clerk said he
expected his counsel every moment.
_ _ _

Mr. Charnock, of King William-street, said that defen-
dant could not consent to wait. He was quite ready to go
on.

The attorney's clerk said ha would go on with hie Hon-
our's permission.

His Honour said ho had laid down a rule not to hear an
attorney's clerk, and he could not now break through it.
He would adjourn the case.

Mr. Charnock—l must apply for my costs.
The case was adjourned upon payment of costs.
Subsequently the counsel arrived, but too late, the parties
having retired.

RAMSGATE COUNTY COURT.
(Before Mr. Harwood.)
SINGULAR CASE UNDER TILE INSOLVENT DEBTORS' ACT.

-HART V. lIVMPIIREYS.
Plaintiff is a jeweller, of Ramsgate, and defendant is the
proprietor of the Tivoli Gardens, at Margate.
The amount sought to be recovered was £8 lls. 4d. for
work done and goods supplied.

Defendant said he had been adjudicated an insolvent, at
Maidstone, under the 1 and 2 Vic. Ho produced a certi-
fied office copy of that portion of the schedule containing
plaintiff's claim.
Mr. Buchanan, of Basinghall-street, London, for plain-
tiff, observed that defendant had only entered plaintiff as a
creditor for S 4 18s., and inquired if defendant produced his
adjudication. Upon being answered in the negative,
His Honour said the case must bo adjourned.
Mr. Buchanan—Before that course is adopted I should
like to ask plaintiff a question. (To
plaintiff)— Did you
not send defendant a copy of your account before he peti-
tioned the court ?
Plaintiff—Yes. He had an account in September, or
three months before.
Mr. Buchanan said he believed it had been decided that
where a debtor inserted his creditor for a sum less than £5
the debt being in reality above £5 he could not avail him-
self of the plea of insolvency-, but was answerable for the
whole debt. His Honour did not think defendant had
wilfully misstated the amount.
Mr. Buchanan—We had no notice.
His Honour—You have the Gazette.
The case was then adjourned for the production of the
adjudication, and for Mr. Buchanan to produce cases.

MARGATE COUNTY couRT.:
SURVEYORS' CHARGES-^IWRIVIN V CRUTCHLEY.

---- -
This was an action to recover £32 balance of an amount
of £4l, money lent. Defendant pleaded a set-off of £4l for
work done in endeavouring to finish some houses for
plaintiff, a captain in the army.
Mr. Buchanan said that nothing was ever said about this
set-off until defendant was sued. If defendant could re-
cover before his sot-off he would certainly be coining
money.

His Honour, after examining defendant's account, show-
ing that he had paid £5, and £4 on account of the loan,
found for plaintiff for £27 with costs, allowing defendant
£5 for work done.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(TIIIS DAY.)

GUILDHALL.
David Hughes, solicitor, 13, Grosham-street, City,
charged with absconding and defrauding his creditors, was
again placed at the bar on a further charge of stealing
£l,OOO, belonging to Mr. Fair, at 10 o'clock this forenoon.
The evidence taken on the last sitting of the court was read
over and signed by the witnesses.
Mr. Pollard prosecuted, and Mr. Morgan (of the firm of
Messrs. lalumphrey, Son, and Morgan) defended the
pri-
■oner.

Mr. John Satchell, solicitor, produced an assignment of
a house, No. 13, Grove Villas, Highbury-barn, 30th April,
1855 ; term of lease, 98 years ; ground rent, £lO 4s. 9d. ; con-
sideration, £945 ; executed by the bankrupt and William
Anderson in witness's presence.
William Haynes was clerk to the bankrupt for 10 years,
and did not know of any business transactions in the matter
referred to in the letter of 15th January that required an
advance of £5,000.
Cross-examined—There were two common law clerks
and two conveyancing clerks in the office, and he could
find no entries in the book, either present or prospective, as
to the £5,000. An offer of business would not be entered
in his books unless something resulted from it. He could
not say the statement in the letter was false.
Re-examined—lf anything resulted from it it would have
appeared in the books, and ho could not find it. Witness
was not aware that this letter had ever been written or an
advance of £5,000 afterwards to any person. This com-
pleted the evidence on this part of the case.
t
ru
s'.rhote
en
Acte xt cwhiat
hr g
remit
egiavi
innsgt himan wd
asu nde
accounting
r the F rfaour dlu InBe3o
T
money received by him as bailee for Mr. George Fag on a
mortgage on houses, No. 5,6, 7,8, 9, and 10, in Shannon-
terrace, Dalston, for £l,OOO mortgaged by the prisoner to
ha
ni sd cbl eyr kh,
m to
0 Williamir Lewis,Gilbert.
Mr. George Fag—On 30th September, 1852, I lent £l,OOO
ad assigned by him to Mr. Fag,
to some person I did not know on mortgage on property at
Dalston, and gave the money to the prisoner, and had the
mortgage deeds produced given to me. On 22d April,
1858, received the letter produced, informing him
that the property was sold and wanting lip the title-deeds,
which were given to him on the assurance that I would
get an equally good security for my money, or my money.
I afterwards received a letter from Mr. Haynes asking me
to complete the purchase, and I received on the sth June,
1858, the deed produced, but did not receive the £l,OOO,
but by letter authorised Mr. Gilbert to pay it to his solici-
tor, the prisoner. I went out of town, and was absent