The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-07 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 6.

_ ..
The Lord Chancellor, after disposing of the several
short cases in the paper, proceeded to hear the further
arguments in the part-heard case of " Spalding v.
Ruddick," which occupied the whole day.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. 6.

The Vice-Chancellor of England was occupied the
whole day with short causes and unopposed petitions
of no general interest.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 6.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HoLnoYD.)

WIGNEYIie DANKRUPTCY—EXPARTE MASTERMAN AND

CO.-JUDGMENT.

His HONOUR to-day, in delivering judgment respect-
ing Messrs. Masterman's claim for certain costs on the
bankrupt's estate, and which claim had given rise to
proceedings in another Court, said that Messrs. Wigney
were bankers at Brighton, Masterman and Company
being their London agents. In March, 1842, the date
of the bankruptcy, Wigneys owed Masterman and Co.
many thousand pounds ; but the latter held bills of ex-
change and promissory notes to a much greater value
than the amount of their claim. Subsequently to the
bankruptcy, Mastermans' had incurred law expenses in
putting the bills and notes in force, and this without
corning to that Court, or giving any notice to the as-
signees. The question now submitted to him (the
Learned Commissioner) by Messrs. Masterman and the
assignees was, whether the former should, in their ac-
count with the estate, be allowed such costs. He was
of opinion that Messrs. Masterman had not only an
equitable but a legal lien on all securities placed
in their hands by Messrs. Wigney, and that all legal
and fair expenses incurred in their realisation,
should be allowed in their account. The Learned
Commissioaer having cited several law authorities
in support of this opinion, proceeded to say that it had
been contended by Mr. Chambers, on the part of the
Messrs. Wigney, that they (Mastermans) should, in the
first instance, have given notice to the assignees, and
consulted with them. Now, there was nothing before
him to show that, if the assignees had had notice, they
could have interfered, or effected any satisfactory ar.
rangement. For these reasons, he thought that Messrs.
Masterman ought to be allowed all costs incurred by
them in enforcing or in resisting claims arising out of the
securities deposited with them by Messrs. Wigney. But
there was a further claim for expenses made by the
Messrs. Masterman, which arose out of the following
circumstances :—After four o'clock in the afternoon of
the 3d March, 1842, Messrs. Mastermun received from a
Mr. Stevens a cheque on Glyn and Co. for 153 L 75., to be
placed to the credit of Captain Clark's account with Wig-
ney and Co. Clark was a customer of Wigney, and kept
an account at their house. Mr. Stevens brought au action
against Masterman to recover this sum, and on the trial
in December, 1842, before the Lord Chief Baron Abinger,
obtained a verdict. Messrs. Masterman's Counsel ten-
dered a bill of exceptions to the summing up of the
Learned Judge, and the proceedings upon the bill of ex-
ceptions were still pending. It appeared by the bill of
exceptions that the cheque in question was paid by
Messrs. Glyn to Messrs. Masterman on the 4th March,
at what is called the morning clearing. The cheque was
searched for, but could not be found. It appeared in
evidence that it was usual with London bankers to get
cheques which were paid into a banking house after such
bill marked by the other banking house, and that a
cheque being so marked was a guarantee that it would
be paid by the party marking it, and it was then treated
as cash. It was not proved that this particular cheque
was taken to Messrs. Glyn and Co. to be marked, but
he witness, who received it at Messrs. Masterman's,
said he should imagine it was taken to Messrs. Glyn
and Co. to be marked, for that was the regu-
lar course of business. Payments made to a London
banker on account of a country banker between four and
five o'clock were generally advised by post the next day,
and that course was adopted with respect to this cheque.
Messrs. Masterman continued to make payments on ac-
count of Messrs. Wigney and Co. up to fire o'clock of the
afternoon of the 3d March. There were several payments
made on account of Messrs. Wigney by Messrs. Master-
man after half-past four on that day, and to a considera-
ble amount. On the following day the Brighton Bank
closed, and Stevens brought his action against Messrs.
Masterman, on the grounds that they were in that trans-
action his agents. For the costs incurred in defending
that action he (the Learned Commissioner) did not think
that Messrs. Masterman could claim against the assig-
nees, Stevens paying in the money not for Wigneys, but
for Clark, who kept his account at Wigneys.' The re-
sult of his judgment was that Messrs. Masterman should
be allowed these costs in realising the securities, but not
those incurred in defending Stevens's action.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClR;;UlT.—Chelmsford, Dec. 6.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
John Young, 27, labourer, was indicted for the
wilful murder of Elizabeth Phillips, at the parish of
Navestock.
Mr. Rodwell conducted the rosecution ; Mr. Ry-
land and Mr. C. Gray defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the transaction ot;f: of which the
charge arose against the prisoner, took place on Sun-
day, the 10th of November. On the afternoon of that
day the deceased, who was a woman of loose character,
was seen to go across a field in the neighbourhood of
Navestock, accompanied by the paisoner, and they
were seen under a hedge together. On the same day
the dead body of the deceased was found lying near
the spot where she was last seen with the prisoner,
and there were some marks of violence upon her
person. The medical gentleman who was called in
deposed that the death was occasioned by extravasa-
tion of blood upon the brain, but he would not take
upon himself to say that this might not have been oc-
casioned by natural causes.
The Learned JUDGE, under these circumstances,
stopped the case, and a verdict of Not Guilty was
returned.

Leonard Lambert, 23, William Harrell, 20, Elillia
Harrell, 24, and William Taylor, 25, all described as
labourers, were indicted for feloniously writing and
delivering a letter to James Miles, threatening to
burn and destroy his property.
Mr. Marsh conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Hawkins defended the Hurrells and Taylor.
It appeared from the testimony of several witnesses
that the prosecutor is a farmer at Aldham, near Col-
chester, and the prisoner, W. liurrell, was in his ser-
vice in August last, at the time the letter in question
was delivered. On the 28th of last month the pri-
soner, Taylor, went to the wife of the prosecutor and
gave her a letter, which he said he had found stuck
on a gate-post upon the farm, and which was addressed
to her husband. The letter in question was to the
following effect :—" To Mr. James Miles, farmer,
Aldham—We are very glad to hear that you have such
a plentiful crop, and are also very glad to hear that
you have made use of a thrashing-machine, but we

warn you it will be a bad job for you if you do it
again, for we warn you as men alive that if you do it
again, you shall have a light, and we will burn you
down. There is another thing against you, which is,
that you employ other parish men to do your har-
vesting, when there are men in your owr parish who
are out of wort:, and you will do wel. to employ
them ; and if you employ a single stanger again,
you shall not do so more than one day, for you shall
have a light. All we want is, to have the work done
by the flail. We do not care for the police, as we are
too strong.—Signed A. A. and Co. Take this as
you like." It would appear that upon the prose-
cutor receiving possession of the letter, he applied
to the police, and the prisoner Taylor was taken into
custody. He then declared that he was in company
with the Hurrells on the prosecutor's farm, and as
they were going through a gate he saw the letter in
question sticking on the gate-post, and he took it out
and asked W. Hurrell who it was addressed to, and
he replied that he could not tell him, but he ad-
vised him to ask another iperson employed
upon the farm, and on his telling him that it was ad-
dressed to M. Miles, he took the letter to him, and
he declared he knew nothing whatever of the con-
tents of it. Suspicion afterwards fell upon the
other prisoners, and they were taken into eust)dy,
when Lambert at first denied all knowledge of the
transaction, but while he was under remand he ex-
pressed a desire to make a communication to a magis-
trate, and he then wrote a statement in which he de-
clared that the letter, and also another of a similar
character, which was sent to a gentleman named
Weston, were written by the Hurrells, and that he
had purchased the paper for them, but not at all
aware to what purpose it was to be employed until
the letters were shown to him by the policeman. He
also stated that he was present when William Hur-
rell's father charged him with writing the threat-
ening letters, and he admitted it, and said
that it could not be helped then. In ad-
dition to these facts, it was shown that
paper of a similar description to that upon which the
threatening letter was written was found in the pos-
session of one of the Harrell's ; and that the father of
the prisoner Lambert, who is a schoolmaster at
Aldhem, and who, it appeared, had taught William
Harrell to write, was called as a witness, and he ex-
pressed his opinion that the writing of the threatening
letter was very similar to that of this prisoner,
although he would not take upon himself to swear
positively to it.
The Learned Counsel on behalf of the prisoners
explained the precise form of the charge against
them, observing that Taylor was charged as the prin-
cipal, and that unless the jury believed it was clearly
made out that he had a guilty knowledge of the con-
tents of the letter, the other prisoners, who were only
charged accessorially with the commission of the
offence, could not be convicted, and they contended
that the story told by him was perfectly reasonable,
and that the very fact of his going openly to deliver
the letter to his master's wife was almost con-
clusive of his innocence. They also remarked
upon the fact that there was little or no evidence
against the other prisoners, and that the statement of
Lambert ought not to have any weight, as it was
legally no evidence at all against the other prisoners,
and, beside=, was clearly only made by him for the
purpose of getting himself out of trouble.
The prisoner Lambert, in his defence, said he had
told nothing but the truth, and it would have been no
interest to him to be concerned in writing such a
letter, for he did not belong to the parish of Aldham,
and had, besides, never been engaged in agricultural
pursuits.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS having summed up, the
jury, after deliberating a considerable time, Acquitted
Elisha Hurrell and Lambert, and returned a verdict
of Guilty against the others.