The Sun.
London, England, 1857-10-15 00:00:00

the St. Pancras parochial authorities for that pur-
po9e.

The jury then returned a verdict in accordance
with the medical testimony, and the inquiry ter-
minated.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Oct. 14,

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before the Senior Commissioner.)
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF WILLIAM TYLER.--.-THE

SURREY °ARLEN&
The bankrupt was described as a dealer in foreign
animals and birds, Penton-place, Walwortb,
Surrey, known as the Royal Surrey Gardens, and
of Cringleford, Norfolk. This was the last exami-
nation meeting. The balance-sheet, commencing
Dec. 1, 1855, and ending at the date of the peti-
tion, August, 1857, bas the following items :
Surplus, Dec. 1855, 8191. ; 3reditors, unsecured,
1,89U1. ; ditto, holding security, 2,3851. ; liability
on unpaid eallspn 438 Royal Surrey Garden shares,
3,5001. ; salary as manager of Royal Surrey Gar-
den', 9001. By good debts, 101/. ; doubtful, 3401. ;
463 Surrey Gardens shares, given up to official as-
signee (no value set down) ; property given up,
501. ; by Surrey Gardens shales held by creditors,
1,5001. ; trade charges, 1,263/. ; losses, 2,305/. ;
expenses, 3651. _

Mr. tams supported. Air. Reid (from the
office of Mr. 'Mike, Serjeant'3 Inn) appeared for
the assignees, and cellulite.' to the bankrupt
passing.

- Mr. T. B. Fleming, representing shareholders
in the- Surrey Gardens, wisEei to examine the
bankrupt. _ _

The bankrupt stated that he had purchased the
Zoological Gardens from Mr. Cross in 1844, for
11,5001. The original agreement was for 14,000/.
No estimate or calculation was made, but he cou-
s'dered the gardens worth that amount. Knows
the profit which Mr. Cross hal made. It was more
than 1,0001. a year, perhaps 2,0001. The above
amount included the stock and premises. He could
give no idea of the value of the stock—it was so
fluctuating ; for, instance, a giraffe, for which he
paid 3001., and was afterwards offered 6001. for,
was sold at last for 401. Mr. Coppock, solicitor,
advanced him 10,2001. towardsthe purchase money,
taking as s.Turity the lease of the premises and an
afire ment for a montage. When he Fold the gar-
dens to the Surrey Gardens Company he:owe 1
Mr. Coppock 11.0001. for money advanced and
interest. Mr. Coppook was paid in shares of
the company. The agreement for the sale of
the Gardens was made with the gentlemen who
were afterwards directors of the company ; the com-
pany was not then formed. They agreed to give
14,0001. iu shares of the company, which were
considered swarth 101. each. The live stock was ro ;
pre-
mises and the buildings. After the company was
npany, merely the lease of the sold to t' e co
formed he had executed what he believed to be an
assignment to them. It was prepared by Mr.
Chappell, then solicitor to the company, and exe-
cuted at Mr. Coppock's office. Mr. Coppock got
1,100 bhares in his own name, and 300 in his (bank-
rupt's) name; that mane 14,0001. He bad had
nothing to do with the gardens since his bankruptcy.
He was aware that the gardens were mortgaged.
When he sold the gardens to the company he had
no solicitor ; he thanked God he had never had oc-
casion for one in his life. (Laughter.)
Mr. Lucas objected to this examination, as irre-
levant.

Mr. Fleming said his object was to ascertain
whether the estate was really Tyler's at the present
moment. There was some doubt about it, as they
had not been able to get at any assignment, or any
information about any assignment. Was the bank-
rupt quite satisfied that lie had executed an as-
signment ?

Bankrupt—l was told that it was one. A portion
of it was read to me.
The bankrupt then passed ; and the 17th Nov.
was named for the irti "cate meeting.

, W(BEeSfTor Me
Francisl N ST Elt
Bayley, C O NETs
Esq.,
COURT.
Judge,)
dge.)
FONBLANQUE V. DUCKSTONE.—IMPORTANT TO THE
LITERARY AND THEATRICAL PROFESSION.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr.
Albany Fonblanque,-jun., barrister-at-law, resid-
ing in Manchester, against Mr. Buckstone, the
comedian, and lessee of the Theatre Royal Hay-
market, to recover the sum of 261. ss. for wrong-
fu' ly detaining a manuscript play entitled, " Hamp-
stead Heath."
Mr. Buckstone was seated by the side of his
solicitor (Mr. H. T. Roberts), whilst the plaintiff
conducted his own case, He said—ln December
last I sent Mr. Buckstone a written farce, entitled
"Hampstead Heath,"with hints and cuts upon the
times, for his approval and acceptation. It was at
the recommendation of a mutual friend that I sent
the piece, it being considered to be peculiarly
adapted for Mr. Buckstone's theatre ; and receiv-
ing no answer in a fortnight, I wrote a letter, but
got no reply. I wrote four or five letters upon the
subject, requesting Mr. Buckstone to give bis de-
cision, that I might know whether the piece was
accepted or not.
In answer to a question from the Court,
Mr. Buckstone here said he had not the letters in
question. It was not his practice to keep such emu-
munications. He had destroyed them.
Mr. Fonblanque—l wrote again, telling him I
was much inconvenienced. that the thing was of
an
nophom coerianlnuayteunrieelcethat
it
was s
poiling, and
would bewi ofh
at t io or
coveretu
valuern
nto me afterwards. I directedagain
to myself with stamps
an see after it, my object
beingtime
d
rbugging him farce if he had not had
afterwards apprised him that I
would not accept it,
and submit it to some other manager. Subsequently
shouldlotcomeread
obtain tiot.townl
it if he
I came to London, and went to the Haymarket, but
could not see Mr. Buckstone.
Wyld, the trea-
surer,desired him to say that
on the following day at
the stage door. During the
it should saidbelYlr.
left. Boluictkfsotro nine e
time I was in town
I called five or six times in the week ; then wrote,
on the 25th of May, stating that I had been de-
tained unnece3sarily in London that I was
exceedingly disappointed in having called so many
have recourse to the last
mthentehso'danodf oflatsahinoilnligd inwto, and that unless it were re-
turned by Monday I should issue a plaint. Last
Saturday the "farce" was returned without a tingle
wor
Mr. Buckstone and stated that
it was mislaid, I would have given him a year or
two, but from the cavalier manner in which I was
dB inu ckasptoonloagyha for its lengthened detention. Ifd written to
treated I thought proper to adopt the present pro-
ceedings, and, under the circumstances, I submit
sufficient amount of forcom-
pleannisateniotnitl ad
myto loss coveorfatisme. I have unsuccess-
fully tried to arrange the matter with Mr. Buck-
stone-
The—What expense do you claim ?
re
railway journey to and.
mr. leFaornnebdia.Juuqdugee—my
expense in Loudon, be-
ofrio. tune
was
sstayed
notyei put
with tao any expense
but the farce is of no
value to me now, because its allusions were to the
times. It would have been worth at least 25
gaineas.
In defence, Mr. Roberts staked that Mr. Buck-
stone, its coming before the public in this case, did
so upon principle. Metropolitan managers gener-
ally were inundated with the productions of authors,
and the present was one of those fare s which,
among many others, were left at Mr. Buckstone's
door without solicitation ; whereas, if lie had asked
for such a production, no doubt he would be liable
for its return. If the court ruled that managers of
theatres were bound to return manuscrip-s left
voluntarily, then a new course must be adopted by
those gentlemen. Mr. Roberts next submitted
that there bad not been a sufficient legal demand
by the plaintiff ; the precise contents of the plain-
tiff's letters had not been stated. Moreover, there
had been no proof of damage sustained.
At the conclusion of the arguments
The lea, ned Judge inimated that there were
difficulties in than case, and he would therefore take
time to consider his judgrn.ont, which he would'
give on Wednesday next.
Judgment deferred accordingly.