The Sun.
London, England, 1850-10-18 00:00:00

Mr. Lewis—Do I understand the Court that he is
acquitted ?
Mr. Rushton—Certainly ; there is no evidence,and
MiGuire is discharged too.
Mr. Lewis—Thank you, Sir. That is all I ask.
Mr. Rushton—You have no further charge against
M'Cruire, Mr. Dowling ?
Mr. Dowling —I have none ; that is, I cannot pro-
ceed any further. I have no further evidence.
Mr. Rushton—Then M'Guire must he discharged,
as far as lam concerned. I have, however, no hesi•
tation in saying that if the handwriting on the ca-
nister had been spoken to I would have committed both
the prisoners on the charge. It behoves persons in
their situation to he very careful how they receive
property, and more especially in the position that the
prisoner Sirrell was. I am very glad the county
justices have done their duty and commited him.
The prisoners were then removed from the dock.

It is stated that Sirrell is in very low spirits, and
frequently makes use of desponding expressions. He
will be brought up, in conjunction with M'Aulev to-
morrow. The general impression in the tow❑ is, that
the case will break down if M'Auley is not indicted
as the receiver, instead of the thief; and that it will
entirely fail as regards Sirrell, he not having opened
the parcel containing the stolen plate before it was
seized by the officers. It will be remembered that
Sirrell positively refused to have anything to do with
the parcel after it was delivered to him by the porter,
and it is stated that he was never known to have re-
ceived one before. It was always done by his clerks,
and it was only by acting in collusion with the rail..
way porter that the 'police officers were enabled to get
the better of him in this instance. Among other ru-
mours, is one to the effect that Sirrell was on the eve
of retiring from business, and that in another month
the whole of his stock would have passed into other
hands.

BRISTOL COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Commissioner Sergeant STEPHEN.)
IN RE ACRAMANS, MORGAN, AND CO., SHIPBUILDERS,
&C., BRISTOL.
The circumstances attendant on the bankruptcy of
this firm, one of the largest in the kingdom, have:oc-
cupied the Court some years, not only on account of
the magnitude of the claims involved, but from the
difficult legal questions which have from time to time
arisen. Many of the points which have been decided
have been of the utmost general interest from the
high authority of Mr. Sergeant Stephen in bank-
ruptcy matters. On Tuesday his Honour delivered a
voluminous judgment, in which points of the highest
interest to the mercantile community at large
were decided on a proof tendered by Mr. William
Alexander Long and others for 6,198/. 155., being
the amount of two bills for 2,525/. and 4,000/.,
dated the 14th and 20th of December, 1841, drawn
by W. Alexander Long, jun., on and accepted by
D. E. and A. Acraman, and endorsed in the name of
lof " Acramans, Morgan, and C 0.," after deducting
from the amount of such bills the sum of 326'a ss.
already received by the said W. A. Long on a proof
made by him in respect of such bills under a fiat
against D. E. and A. Acraman.
His HONOUR, in giving judgment, observed that,
after some preliminary investigation on the subject of
the consideration for which the bills in question were
given, which ended in the satisfactory establishment
of the fact that the present claimants are the holders
of them, for valuable consideration, to the amount fur
which they were drawn, the proof was opposed by the
assignees of Acramans, Morgan, and Co., on two
grounds; first, that the:!endorsement was made under
circumstances which rendered it not binding on Acra-
mans, Morgan, and Co. ; and, secondly, that it was at
all events incompetent to the claimants now to prove
against Acramans, Morgan, and Co., having already
proved and received a dividend on the same bills, as
against D. E. and A. Acraman, this being a case, as
was contended, in which the law did not allow of
double proof. The facts of the case, shortly stated, are
these—At a period prior to the endorsement of these
bills, viz., in May, 1841, the firm of D. E. and A.
Acraman, consisted of the three Acramans, viz.,
Daniel Acraman, W. E. Acraman, and A. J. Acra-
man ;that of Acramans, Morgan, and Co., of the tame
three Acramans, together with two other partners,
viz., Mr. Morgan, and Mr. T. Holroyd ; the trade of
the former firm being that of merchants, the latter
that of shipbuilders and engineers. Two of
the Acramans, viz., William E. Acraman and A.
J. Acraman, were also at the same period partners,
with other persons, in a firm of Acramans, Bush,
Castles, and Co. i(described in the evidence as the
" tea concern"), and one of the partners in the firm
last mentioned was William A. Long, the younger,
son of the now claimant, William Alexander Long ;
but by agreement between him, his father, and his
uncle, Samuel Long, the testator of the other claim-
ants, it ,a as on behalf of the father and uncle, and at
their risk only, that he became partner, and he was to
account to them 'for the profits. In this tea concern
none of the partners of Acramans, Morgan, and Co.,
except the two Acramans before mentioned, had any
interest. At the date above mentioned of May, 1811,
Acramans, Morgan, and Co., being in want of money
to carry on their business, Mr. Holroyd and Mr. W.
E. Acraman together applied to Coils, Thompson, and
Co., bill-brokers, to raise money for the purpose,
whioh was accordingly done by procuring the dis-
count of certain bills to the amount of 20,000/.,
drawn by Mr. Holroyd in his sole name on D. E.
and A. Acraman, and accepted by that firm, and the
money so raised was paid over to the credit of Acre-
mans, Morgan, and Co., to their bankers, and applied
by that house to their own purposes. The bills so dis-
counted became due at diffsrent periods from the 30th
of August to the 4th of October following; but circum-
stances having occurred which led Mr. W. E. Acraman
to think it desirable to retire them before they became
due, D. E. and A. Acraman borrowed money for
that purpose from the house of Hulbert, Layton, and
Co., and retired the bills accordingly, and afterwards,
on the 10th of August, 1841 (without the privity, as
it appears to me, upon the evidence of any member
of the firm of Acramans, Morgan, and Co., not being
a member of the firm of D. E. and A. Acraman), Mr.
W. E. Acraman applied towards the repayment of
Hulbert, Layton, and Co., a sum of 8,7001., then in
his hands, and for which he was accountable to Long,
jun., as part of the share of the latter in the capital
and profits of the tea concern, the same being then in
course of winding up under the management of W.
E. Acraman. According to the evidence of W. E.
Acraman, the loan of this sum of 8,7001. had previ-
ously been solicited and:obtained by him on behalf of
D. E. and A. Acraman from Long, jun., such loan
being obtained by D. E. and A. Acraman for the
purpose of retiring the bills for 20,0001. above-men-
tioned; but, according to the evidence of Long, jun.,
no loan to that extent bad at that time been assented
to on his part ; and it is probable some misapprehen-
sion may have occurred between them as to the ex-
tent to which a loan had been agreed to. His Honour
then recited the circumstance of an interview which
took place between Long, jun., and Mr.W.E. Acraman,
in which the latter ultimately proposed that Long,
jun., should draw the two bills in question on D. E.
and A. Acraman, it being stated by Mr. W. E.
Acraman, at the same time, that he had authority to
use their endorsement. This proposal was accepted.
He (the Sergeant) found that a Mr. Franklyn had
joined the firm of Acramans, Morgan, and Co. on the
11th of August, 1841, being the day after the appli-
cation of Long, jun. s, money to the purpose of re-
tiring the bills for 20,000/. ; and, as one of the points
in opposition to the proof, it has been argued by the
assignees that, at all events, there can be no right of
proof as against Mr. Franklyn, nor, consequently,
against the joint estate of the firm of Acramans,
Morgan, and Co., to which he belonged ; for that,
though the endorsement took place after he became a
partner, yet the raising of the 20,0001. and the retiring
of the bills on which it was raised occurred while he
was a stranger to the concerns of that firm. In
answer to this objection the claimants relied on the
fact, that the agreement under which he joined (and
which is in evidence before me) contained a stipula-
tion that all the transactions of the partnership since
the original establishment shall, for all purposes, be
participated in by the new partners; and 1 incline to
think that answer sufficient. But the judgment I
am about to give on the case at large will supersede
the necessity of any decision on this collateral
point. His Honour having detailed some other facts
connected with the drawing of these bills, continued,
—The argument of the assignee is, that the debt
in respect of which the bills in question were given
was a debt due from W. E. Acraman to Locg, jun.,
on an account unconnected with the firm of Acramans,
Morgan, and Co., viz., the winding up of the tea con-
cern, and that the case thereftre is governed by a class
of decisions (of which ex parte Goulding, 2 Glyn
and Jam., page 118, may be selected as a good ex-
ample) which have established that where one partner
gives the acceptance or endorsement of his firm in
payment of his separate debt, without authority in
fact from his copartners, such acceptance or endorse-
ment does not render the firm liable to the person
who takes the bill with knowledge that it has been
drawn and endorsed on account of his separate debt.
This argument on the part of the assignees IS entitled,
in my opinion, to prevail. The bills in this case, with
the endorsement in the. names of Acramans, Morgan,
and Co., were unquestionably given by W. .E. Acra-
man,of security for ha as Long, jun., well knew, in payment of or by
way
(W. E. Acraman o) bepurtite