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

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.-( MIS 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 test

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 ho 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 COHPANY V. DILLMOTT-
REFUSAL TO HEAR AN ATTORNEY'S CLERK.

This was an action to recover the carriage of som• 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 ho would go on with his Hon-
our's permission.
His Honour said he 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 THE INSOLVENT DEBTORS' ACT.

---HART V. HUMPHREYS.

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. He 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 be 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
,hree months before.

Mr. Buchanan said he believed it had been decided that
where a debtor inserted his creditor for a sum loss than £5
6 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.
9 His Honeur—You have the Gazettz.

The case was then adjourned fur the production of the
adjudication, and for Mr. Buchanan to produce cases.

MARGATE COUNTY COURT.
SURVEYORS' CHARGES-M'EIVIN 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 set-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,-(THIS Y. )