The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-06 00:00:00

IN RE ELACKEIALL.

Mr. OGLE thoveil,itili;matterofan arbitration, for a
rule to show cause why the award of the umpire should
not be set, aside. It appeared by the affidavits that a dis-
putad debt was referred to the arbitration of two gentits-
men, who could not agree, and each proposed a distinct
umpire, to which the other objected. For the purpose,
therefore, of getting over this difficulty, they hit upon the
plan of writing the names of the two proposed umpires
on two distinct pieces of papt-r, and having put the
slips into a hat, the first that was drawn out was to
be the umpire. This mode of election, however, W 22
contended to be illegal, ?,s the Courts hal laid it down as
a rule that the appointment of an umpire must not be a
matter cif chance, but must have the sanction of the will
and judgment of the two arbitrators, and hence it was
insisted the award in this case was not valid.
Rule granted.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)

IN RE NAIRNE.

To-day was appointed fO1.;;; adjourned dividend
meeting in the case of this bankrupt, who formerly car-
ried on business as a stockbroker in Warnford-court
City.
The bankrupt speculated largely in shares, &c., and
misappropriated some Exchequer•bills, fur which
he was sentenced to twelve mentbs' imprisonment. Out
of one of these cases a question arose at the last meeting,
on a proof tendered by the Rev. Mr. Bunco for 2,0001.,
the value of some Russian Bondi, which the
bankrupt had converted to his own use. The
facts were these :—Mr. Bunco had given money
to the bankrupt to invest in Russian Bonds,
which he did, but retained theta fur some rim s by con-
sent ; the dividends were paid up to the time of the
bankruptcy, when it was discovered that bankrupt had
sold the bonds soon after he got them. Mr. Bence
commenced a prosecution, which, however, was
abandoned, as was alleged on the part of the assignees,
on payment of costs, but bankrupt was convicted on an
indictment preferred by a Mr. Spurgen, who had been
defrauded out of Exchequer-bills to the amount of
1,8004 Mr. Spurgeu was admitted to prove for that
sum, but an objection was taken to the claim by Mr.
Bunce, on the ground that he had not prosecuted with
effect, and therefore was not entitled to the civil remedy.
On the contrary, it was contended that there was no
proof of any compromise, but supposing there had been,
it was not a compromise of felony but of misdemeanour.
His HoNotta said that in such a case, if it were not a
felony it ought to be made one, and he should adjourn
the case for the examination of Mr. Bunco, and it would
become an inquiry whether there was not a probable
cause to suspect felony, if so, as he had not prosecuted,
the proof could not be admitted; the policy of the law
bring to compel a person to do his duty to the public
before he sought his private benefit.
Mr. STEELE now appeared, and said that Mr. Bunce
had unf .rtunately died since the last meeting, and there-
fore could not be examined, and the proof was now
tendered on behalf of the executors. _ . .

Mr. HILLIEARY renewed his aroinent, and said that
Mr. Steele had admitted to him that the costs had been
paid, therefore Mr. Buriee could not have maintained an
action against the bankrupt. The assignees had had no
notice of the death of Mr. Banco, or they would have
brought bankrupt up on a habeas.
His HONOUR said that one of the objects of the exa-
mination of Mr. Bunco was to see whether the bankrupt
ought not to have been indicted fur felony ir.stend of
misdemeanour, and if so, Mr. Bunco would not have been
entitled to his civil remedy until he had pro eauted. He
should not name any further mating till bankrupt had
unde,gone his sentence.
The meeting was then adjourned.

SECONDARIES.'-(THIS DAY.)
(Bef4,re Mr. hocondary POTTER.)

JAMES AND ANOTHER V. THE ENFIELD AND EDMONTON

RAILWAY COMPANY.

The plaintiffs in this case are Mr. James and Mr.
Sawyer, who were retained as joint solicitors of the En-
field and Edmonton Railway Company to obtain an Act
of Parliament for the usual purposes. The Act was
obtained, after which the directors di-posed of their
right to the Eastern Counties Railway Company. The
present action was brought to recover the sum of 741.,
which plaintiffs had expended in coun,elm' fees.
Mr. BAGLEY appeared for the plaintiffs, but the de-
fendants allowed judgment to go ny default. A verdict
was therefore given for the amount claimed.
AIREY, V. PARSONS AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiff in this action is an underwriter, and de-
fendan:s were in partnership as insurance brokers. The
action was brought to recover 141.3 61 fur premiums

on insurance!.
The action was originally brought against Parsons
alone, who ailmitttd the debt, but he pleaded in abate-
ment that he ha.! ti [ariner named Reynolds. A second
ac.hon was then brought against both, and Reynolds ad-
mrtid his liability, but defendant pleaded that he 140,3
not inch 13t2d.
Evidence was then cdduced, proving defendant's ad-
mission, and a verdict was given for the amount
claimed.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS DAY.)
Rose lioinifion and Jane lngram were indicted fir
f
stealing, Cu the 28th of October, from the person of
Janes Martin divers moneys, his property. The pri-
soners pleadcd not guilty.
James Martin said he was a Chelsea pensioner, and
on the 28th Octobvr he met the prisoaers near Elton'
bridge, Pimlico, and after biome conversation treated
them ;0 some gin. After he had left tt!fl public-house a
policeman asked him it he had lost anything, and upon
searching his pockets found that among other things he
had lost a medal of the Thames Tunnel Iliad a franc piece.