The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, July 25.
(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)

RUSSELL V. THE EAST ANGLIAN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. BACON and Mr. MILLER moved for the committal
of the Sheriff of Norfolk for contempt of the court, in
taking possession of railway carriages and other pro-
perty belonging to the company, under a writ of fieri
facies, issued at the instance of a simple contract credi-
tor, there having at the time been a receiver appointed
by the court. It was alleged by the plaintiff at law that
his debt was for coals and coke supplied to the company,
for which he had obtained a judgment. The Learned
Counsel stated that the sheriff had a clear notice of the
appointment of the receiver before he interfered with the
property in question. Advice had been given to that
officer to apply to a judge, who suggested that the re-
ceiver and the sheriff should interplead. The receiver,
considering that he exercised his office by authority of
the court, declined to interplead. Counsel contended
that in tdis determination the receiver was acting pro-
perly, for his appointment would be a mere nullity if be
could be interfered with by or on behalf of a judgment
creditor, his duty being especially to protect the inte-
rests of the bond creditors and mortgagees.
Mr. ROLT and Mr. TOLLER appeared for the execution
creditor, and contended that the appointment of the re-
ceiver was made upon an order taken by consent, and
had been concerted with a view to defeat the simple con-
tract creditors. It was manifestly unjust that the bond
creditors and mortgagees should have priority of pay-
ment out of the tolls or fares produced by the working
of the line, while the creditor who supplied the coals
by means of which the line was worked would be left
unpaid,
Mr. Roundell Palmer and Mr. Bunney appeared for
the sheriff.

Mr. BACON pointed out that if the law allowed an
execution creditor to interfere with a receiver, a com-
pany might, by creating many simple contract debts, en-
able creditors of that class to defeat the prior claims of
the bondholders and mortgagees.
His HoNoun—Has the defendant in the suit in which
the receiver was appointed been served with notice
of this motion?
Mr. BecoN—He has not. The practice of the court
does not require it.
His HONOUR said that the registrar considered the
practice did not require such notice. Assuming that
such was the practice generally, he still thought there
were circumstances connected with the case which
might render it necessary and right that the defendant
should be present, It might be that it would appear
that the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit were
not distinguishable; but that could not be denied in the
absence of the defendants. If the Ccurt were to permit
the sheriff to go through with his process, it might have
the effect of allowing him to interfere with tha defen-
dant's property. His Honour would not permit firm to
stand in the way of attaining substantial justice. Al-
though concert in obtaining the appointment of the re-
ceiver was not denied, it might turn out that such con-
cert was not improper or blamable. The motion must
stand over for the defendants to be served.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July 25.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FANS.)
IN THE BANDRUPTCY OF ALARIC A. WATTS.

The bankrupt, who was described as a printer, in
Berners•street, came up on the question of certificate,
unopposed. _ _

Mr. LAWRENCE expressed a hope that the Court would
in this case grant a certificate of the first class. The
bankrupt's misfortune had mainly arisen out of harassing
and protracted litigation in the Court of Chancery.
There had been a heavy loss in the realia ition of pro-
perty, which mainly consisted of copyrights and pictures.
The personal expenditure was of the most moderate
character, and the accounts most accurately kept. There
was nothing, in short, he urged against Mr. Watts, who
enjoyed a high literary reputation.
The official assignee stated that a dividend of 7s. 6d.
in the pound would be paid in the course of a feW days,
and testified to the satisfactory nature of the accounts.
The solicitor to the assigne4s, Mr. Bolden, confirmed
the statement of Mr. Lawrence. The assignees were
perfectly content. The expenditure of the bankrupt
had always been most moderate, considerably below his
income.

The COMMISSIONER could have no hesitation whatever
in granting the certificate at once, but w ould take time
:o consider his deci,,ion as to the question of class.

SHERIFF'S COURT, July 25.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCEIELL.)
• CREW CON.—.COLES V. MARSHALL.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for criminal conversation. The cause was before the
Court some time back, when the damages, which were
laid at 300/, were assessed at 2001., and a new trial had
been granted on the ground of excessive damages, and
an improper reception of evidence.
Mr. Parry appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ballhn-
tine for the defendant.

From the statement of the Learned Counsel for tho
plaintiff, and the witnesses called, it appeared that he
was a young man, and had been in the employ of Mr.
Lunham, wholesale provision merchant, in the Borough,
where the defendant, a mean
was warehouseman, at 5/.
plaintiff was married in 1847,
his own age, kept a little shop in G
week
fettout fifty years of age,
worth-road, where sweetmeat':
his salary at the time was 11. a week,
.hidoi suweife
tobacco, w hwl o
were
aboutsolad
the occurrence which led to the actio Gloucester-place,
he
eips
and his
partial board. The
hadascieuWas since
aotbsMerrv.eLdutnohyttirns:ts
neces-
sarily absent at his
,t
hb
au tptl
ahien
tdiefff
an defendant ai
fiats swt ihl le
nr ehme
ea iwnaesd
nin e thes-
same employment. In
work,January a n
dv
al
dtotchuemde
nfte defendant was
d e
f dant's handwriting was put in, which had been sent
by him to Mrs. Coles, and in which he made an ap-
pointment with her. The plaintiff's suspicions were
excited, and on being told what sort of a person had
visited his wife, he declared that it was the defendant.
Soon afterwards he sold off his things at the shop, and
was subsequently summoned to Southwark Police Court
to support his wife, where he denied his liability, on the
ground of adultery with Marshall. The Magistrate,
however, made au order on him to support his wife, and
on the following day the defendant and Mrs. Coles were
traced to a coffee-house, in Newington-causeway, where
they had engaged a bed for the night, and on the plain-
tiff and a policeman entering the room, the defendant
was found undressed, and Mrs. Coles in the bedroom
with him.
In stating the case, Mr. PARRY contrasted the age of
the parties, and the situation of the plaintiff under the
defendant who had destroyed his happiness, and then
asked the jury to award the full sum at which the
damages were laid in the declaration, namely, 300/.
Mr. BALLANTINE addressed the jury in mitigation of
damages. He complained that no female witness had
been called, and that certain facts had been withheld
from the jury. Then the jury would consider the shop
which the plaintiff had kept—a cigar shop—and where
he had exposed his wife to the attention of men. lle did
not mean to deny that the defendant was a man advanced
in years, but he thought it very probable he had fallen
into the temptation, and bad not practised the arts which
had been imagined to seduce the young woman. The
Learned Counsel was proceeding in an energetic strain
to oomment on the abience of the parties who had wit
rlissed the scene in the coffee-house, when Mr. Parry
interrupted him, by sa3ing that the viitnesses had been
subrzenaed by the defendant ald were in attendance—an
interruption which Mr. Ballantine denounced in strong
language as resembling a trick to catch the jury. Ile
(Mr. Ballantine) contended that it was a case for small
damages.
The Learned UNDER-SIIEBIFF, in placing the case be-
fore the jury, told them they had nothing to do with
the former trial—their only duty in the case was to as-
sess the damages on the eviclet,ce given, the defendant
having admitted the cause of action by allowing judg-
ment to go by default. Although the observation should
not have been made by Mr. Parry, it was to be ob-
servad that if any witness had been kept back, the de-
fendaut had the power to bring forward any evidence he
thought proper in the inquiry with the view to diminish
the damages; he had, however, called no witnesses.
'rho Jury, after a brief consultation, assessed the da-
mages at 200/.; the same amount as was awarded on
the former trial.