The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-19 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jun. 18.

TILE SUN,

he 25th of August, wind and weather permitting,
this must be considered a portion of the contract, for
the violation of which the defendants were liable in
damages. If the Court should be of a different opinion,
however, the defendants should have leave to move to
enter a nonsuit. He then left it to the jury to assess
the damages.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 401., which com-
prehended the 32/. 10s. paid by the plaintiff as part
of the passage: money, and 71. 105. expenses incurred
before the arrival of the ship in Plymouth.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 18.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE WEST AND WEST.
The bankrupts, Elizabeth West and Alfred West,
mother and son, were tailors in Adelaide-street,
Strand.
Mr. Duncan opposed; Mr. Cooke supported the
bankrupts.
It appeared that the bankrupts had submitted to
their creditors a statement showing that the firm had
1,1001. of good debts. A lot of bills were drawn on
the 11th of October on their various customers,
amounting to 3871, and given to an uncle at Hast-
ings, who bad become security to Mr. Dawson,
draper, of Newgate-street. It further appeared that
the balance-sheet would not bear the test of exami-
nation. An adjournment was therefore ordered by
the Commissioner.
The bankrupts' debts are 1,357/. ; their assets nomi-
nal. The losses are put down at 9731.

IN RE IVES AND IVES.
The bankrupts were drapers at Norwich. This
was the certificate meeting.
Mr. Lawrance supported ; Mr. Bagley opposed on
behalf of the assignees.
The bankrupts' debts are 1,5681.; their assets 1601.
Mr. BAGLEY submitted that the bankrupts had
made away with property in an improper manner.
The whole of the stock had been swept off in August
last under bills of sale given by the bankrupts to an
aunt, Mrs. Mary Ives, and other persons. The aunt
*as required to give evidence, but an affidavit having
been put in, alleging that she had heen unable to
attend in consequence of illness, he submitted that
there must be an adjournment.
Mr. LAWRANCE urged that the amount received by
Mrs. Ives had been no more than 451., and that the
Odd Fellows Club being the party who had distrained
under the powers of a bill of sale fur 4001., it was
not probable that there had been anything collusive
in the matter.
His HONOUR held that the creditors wore entitled
to have the evidence of Mrs. Ives, and adjourned the
certificate meeting for that purpose.

IN RE G. STEWARD.
The bankrupt was a pawnbroker at Norwich. His
capital in 1845 was 501. His debts are now 1,575/. ;
his assets 8951. Mr. Lucas, on behalf of the assig-
nees, succeeded in resisting the bankrupt's passing
his examination, and any allowance being made. The
bankrupt, having 2301. in hand, had put his creditors
to the expense of about 2501. in disputing the adjudi-
cation of bankruptcy, and appealing to the Court of
Review.

IN RE HENRY STRATTON.

A petition in bankruptcy was taken out this day
against Henry Stratton, one of the proprietors of the
Bucks Chronicle, who absconded on the 27th of De-
cember last from Aylesbury, and whose name has
been brought before the public in connexion with
the savings' bank at that place.

(Sitting at Nisi Priva befire Mr. Baron ROLFE and
a London Jury.)
This was the first sitting at Guildhall in Hilary
Term. The cases set down for trial were fir the
most part undefended. The following was the only
case tried deserving of notice.

CRANSTON V. MARSHAL AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Humfry
.(with whom was Mr. Cleasbv) ap-
peared for the plaintiff; Mr. Martin (with Mr. Wilde)
represented the defendants.
It appeared from the opening statement of the
plaintiff's Counsel, that he is an Irish schoolmaster,
whe, with his wife and five children, resolved in the
autumn of last year to emigrate to Australia. The
defendants, who are emigration agents and shipbro-
kers, carrying on business in Fencburch-street, on
the 27th of July last agreed to provide the plaintiff
and his family with a passage i.nd provisions, in a
ship call.-d the Asiatic, which was advertised to
sail for Adelaide from London on the 15th of
August, and from Plymouth on the 25th of Au-
gust, wind and weather permitting. The sum
agreed upon with the plaintiff for the passage was
651.. one-half of which was deposited at the time
the agreement was made. Upon the faith of this
agreement the:pi aintiff brought over his family from Ire -
I and, and arrived at Plymouth on the 20th of August,
the advertisement announcing that passengers' bag-
gage must be on board three days at least before that
appointed for sailing. On the 25th of August, the
day the Asiatic was expected in Plymouth, the plain-
tiff ascertained that she had not left London, and
that, for some cause or another, the sailing was post-
poned for ten days at the least. The plaintiff not
being in a position to incur the expense of maintain-
ing his family in Plymouth, relinquished the intention
of going out in the Asiatic, and took his passage on
hoard another vessel called the Constant, which had
then got her clearance papers, and was about to sail
from Plymouth. It so happened that, in consequence
of some quarrel between the owners and the char-
terers of the Constant, she did not sail at the time
appointed either, and the unfortunate plaintiff, after
being detained in Plymouth until the month of Sep-
tember, saw the vessel in which he had first taken
his passage sail before that in which he eventually
proceeded. It was only fair, however, to state that the
detention of the Constant occasioned no further loss to
the plaintiff than the loss of time, as the charterers of
thet vessel kept the plaintiff and his family on board
their ship, finding them in provisions. Until the
pleintitf went on board the Constant, however, and
W waiting for the arrival of the Asiatic, he, was
at some expense, for which he now claimed 101. by
way of damages ; and ho also claims to have back the
sum of 32/. 10,e deposited on the 27th July, as already
mentioned, which the defendants Lad refused to return
to him.
On the part of the defendants, it was submitted
that time was not of the essence of the contract made
with the plaintiff by the charterers of the Asiatic,
and that this was really an action by the owners of
the Constant, a rival emigration ship, to whom the
plaintiff passed the receipt for 32/. 10s. as part pay-
ment of his passage-money.
Mr. Baron ROLFE was of opinion that as the letter
by which the defendants agreed to take out and pro.
vision the plaintiff and his family contained a printed
statement that the ship was to sail from Plymouth on

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JANUARY 19, 1850.