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

IN RE BLACKIIALL.

Mr. OGLE moved, in the waiter of an arbitration, for a
rule to show cause why the award of the umpire should
not be set a-ide. It appeared by the affidavits that a dis-
puted debt was referred to the arbitration of two gentle-
men, who could not agree, and each proposed a distinct
umpire, to which the other otjected. For tha purpose,
therefore, of getting over this difficulty, they hit upon the
plan ef writin4 the names of the two proposed umpires
on two distinct pieces of pap-r, and having put the
slips into a bat, the first that was drawn out was to
be the umpire. it.is in.ide of e:ectiop, however, was
contended to be illegal, q,s the Courts hal laid it down as
a tule that the appointment of an umpire must not be a
matter • f &mum but musr, have the sanction of the will
and judgment of the two arbitratirs, 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 fur an 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, &0., for which
he was sentenced to twelve menths' 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 Bonds, which the
bankrupt had converted to his owu use. The
facts were these :—Mr. Bance 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 time of the
bankruptcy, when it was discovered that bankrupt had
sold the bonds soon after ho got them. Mr. Bunco
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
1,800/. Mr. Spurgeu was admitted to prove fur that
sum, but an objection vs as 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 noisome said that in such a case, if it were not a
felony it ought to be made one, and he should adjourn
the cave for the examination of Mr. Bunce, and it would
become an inquiry whether the re 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 be sought private benefit.
Mr. STEELE now appe fired, and said that Mr. Bunco
had unf ueunately 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 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. Bunce, 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 for felony instead of
misdemeanour, and if so, Mr. Bunco would not have been
entitled to his civil remedy until he had preeecuted. He
should not name any further meeting till bankrupt had
undergone his sentence.
The meeting was then adjourned.

SECOND ARIES:—(T HIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary 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, atter which the directors disposed of their
right to the Eastern Counties Railway Company. The
present action was brought to recover the sum of 741.,
which plaintiffs had expended is counsel,' fees.
Mr. BAGLEY appeared for the plaintiffs, but the de-
fendants allowed judarneut to go by 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-
fendants were in p-atnership as insurance brokers. The
action was bri,ught to recover 141. 6d.' for premiums
on insurances.
The action was originally brought against Persons
alone, who admitted the debt, but he pleaded in abate-
me!it that he had a partner named Reynolds. A second
action was then brought against both, and Reynolds ad-
mitted his liability, but detendant pleaded that he was
not indebted.
Evidence was then adduced, proving defendant's ad-
mission, and a verdict was given for the amount
claimed.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Tills DAY.)
Rose Hamilton and Jane Ingram were indicted for
stealing, on the 28;h of October, from the person of
James M,lrtin divers moneys, his property. The pri-
soners pleaded not guilty,
Mattin said he was a Chelsea pensioner, and
on the 28th October he met the .prisoners near Eiton-
bridge, Pimlico, and atter some conversation treated
them to.somegin. After he had left the public-house a
policeman asked him if he had lost anything, and upon
Hatching his pockets found that among other things he
had loot medal of the Thames Tunnel sad a franc piece.