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

IN RE BLACKBALL.

Mr. OGLE moved, in the matter of an arbitration, for a
rule to show cause why the award of the umpire should
not he set aside. It appeared by the affidavits that a dis-
puted debt was reft:rrk d to the arbitration of two gentle-
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 paper, and having put the
slips into a hat, the first that was drawn out was to
be the umpire. This mode of wectiou, however, was
contended to be illegal, as the Courts hal laid it down as
a rule that the appointment of an umpire must not be a
matter i f chance, but must have the sanction of the will
and judgment of the two arbitrators, and hence it was
insisted she award in this case was nut valid.
Rule granted.

BANKRUPTCY,-(THIS DAY.)

IN RE NAIRNE.

To-day was appointed for an adjourned dividend
meeting i❑ the case of this bankrupt, who formerly cdr-
ried on business as a stockbroker in Warnford.court
City.

The bankrupt speculated largely in shares, &c., and
misappropriated some Exchequer-bills, &0., for which
he was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. Out
of one of these cases a question arose at the last meeting,
on a proot tendered by the Rev. Mr. Bunce fur 2,0001.,
the value of some Russian Bonds, which the
bankrupt had converted to his own use. The
facts were these :—Mr. Bunce had given money
to the bankrupt to invest in Russian Bonds,
which he did, but retained them for some time by con-
sent ; the dividends were paid up to the Limo of the
bankruptcy, when it was discovered that bankrupt had
sold the bonds soon after he got them. Kr. Bunco
commenced a prosecution, which, however, was
abandoned, as was ulleged 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 fir that
sum, but an objection a,: 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 florrourt 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. Bunce, 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
being 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. lIILLIEARY renewed his argument, and said that
Mr. Steele had admitted to him that the costs had been
paid, therefore Mr. Bunce could not have maintained an
action against the bankrupt. The assignees had had no
notice of the death of Mr. Bunco, or they would have
brought bankrupt up on a habeas.
Ills HONOUR said that one of the objects of the exa-
mination of Mr. Bunce was to see whether the bankrupt
ought not to have been indicted for felony instead of
misdemeanour, and if so, Mr.l3unce would not have been
entitled to his civil remedy until he had pro,ecuted. Ile
should not name any farther meeting till bankrupt had
undergone his sentence.
The meeting was then adjourned.

SECONDARIES:-(THISDA.Y.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)

JAMES AND ANOTHER V. THE ENFIELD AND EDMONTON

RAILWAY COMPANY.

The plaintiffs iu 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 disposed of their
right to the Eastern Counties Railway Company. The
present action was brought to recover the sum of 741.,
wl:ich plaintiffs had expended in counsels' fees.
Mr. BAGLEY appeared for the plaintiffs, but the de-
fendants allowed judgment to go by default. A verdict
was therefore given for the amount claimed.
AIREY, v. PARSONS AND ANOTHER.
The plaiutiff in this action is an underwriter, and de-
fendants were in partnership as insurance brokers. The
action was brought to recover 141. 3e. 6d. for premiums

on insurances.
The action was originally brought against Parsons
alone, who admitted the debt, but he pleaded in abate-
ment that he had a partner named Reynolds. A second
action was then brought against both, and Reynolds ad-
mitted his liability, but defendant pleaded that he asi
not indrb•ed.
Eyidence was then adduced, proving defendant's ad-
mission, and a verdict was given tor the amount
claimed.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS DAY.)
Ruse Hamilton pod Jane Ingram were indicted for
etealiug, on the 28th of October, from the person of
James Martin divers moneys, his property. The pri-
soners pleaded not guilty.
Martin said be was a Chelsea pensioner, and
on the 28th October he met the prisoners near EAton-
bridge,. Pimlico, and alter some conversation treated
th.m to POMO Alter he had left the public-house a
''llicemau asked him it he had lost anything, and upon
searching his pockets found that among other things he
had wit a medal of the Thames Tunnel cad a franc piece.