The Sun.
London, England, 1845-09-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF .BANICRUPTCY, Sept. 3.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Farm)
IN RE JONES EXPARTE GLASS.

The Learned Commissioner proceeded to hear further argu-
ments in this case. The preliminary points appeared in The
Sun Monday—the decision is very important to tlikt com-
mercial world.
The defendant was the drawer of a bill of exchange which
had been dishonoured, and the present application was on a
summons under the late Act of Bankruptcy, which declares
that ai.y person being summoned for a debt and not paying the
same, or denying on affidavit his liability, might be declared to
have committed an act of bankruptcy. The affidavit of debt
in this case did not set out that due notice of dishonour of the
bill had been given, and that therefore no debt arose, and that
defendant was not bound to answer. In reply, it was urged
that the affidavit was sufficient in cases where parties were
called upon to put in bail, and consequently to call
upon him to answer whether he owed the debt or not.
At the original hearing, the Learned Commissioner said that
the case of hail was not different from this, as by this proceed-
ing the whole property might he taken under a fiat of bank-
ruptcy. The Judges had held, that where a question arose as
to the liberty of the subject, the person setting the law in motion
ought to substantiate his right. He considered that in such a
case as this he was bound to require equal proof. He, therefore,
adjourned the hearing till cases were produced.
After hearing a very prolonged argument,
The Learned COMMISSIONER declined enforcing the sum-
mons unless more distinct cases were brought forward.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Sept. 3.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
BARRETT V. TILT.

This WAS an action brought on a bill of exchange, of which
the defendant was alleged to be the acceptor.
Mr. RYLAND, who appeared for the plaintiff, said there
vvers two material pleas on the record ; first, that defendant
never accepted the bill ; and, secondly. that it had been altered
since acceptance. It would, however, be in fact admitted
that the signature was that of the defendant ; and the real
question to try was, whether there had been any alteration
sifter the time it was so signed. He would be able to show that
it had be, n originally dated the sth, but in consequence of the
defendant having other bills coming due, he requested to have
it altered ; and it was so altered the next day, to the Bth of
June ; the alterition was so palpable that there could be no
concealment or attempt at fraud, for the alteration was made
not only with the consent and knowledge, but actually at the
suggestion of the defendant.
Mr. CROUCH, for the defendant, contended that no bill could
be altered after once made, although all parties consented.
Mr. RYLAND said not after it had been out ; but here the
alteration was made before acceptance.
Mr. Caou cis argued that the alteration of the date made the
bill invalid, as the time had been extended ; and it therefore
required another stamp.
file SECONDARY said, to support the argument, it must be
shown the bill had been out to some purpose; the mere carry-
ing it back from acceptor to drawer was not sufficient.
Mr. CROUCH submitted that the alteration was in itself a
fraud on the revenue ; and he further contended, that the bill
was invalid, as it bore the date of a Sunday.
Mr. Barnett Joseph, who had discounted the bill for defend-
ant himself, spoke to the acceptance, and had no doubt of its
being dated correctly. He would swear he had never altered it.
It was not discounted on the 6th or 7th. From the evening
of the 6th to the evening of the 7th was his fiabbath, and lie
would swear positively he never transacted business then. He
discounted it on the Bth. The bill was dated the Bth.
"tr. Caoucti then addressed the jury for the defendant, and
contens;:bd that the witness was not deserving of credit, and that
the bill on the faae of it showed that the alteration had been
merle stihsequently to the original date ; and that, in fact, the
bill had not been presented in due time, and the date was al-
tered afterwards to give time. The Learned Counsel also de-
clared that the bill had been presented, and altered after pre-
mutation.
The SECONDA av said that an alteration after presentment
could not be a fraud on the revenue.
Me. Rare.% n sail the two lines of defence were irrecon-
cilable.
Mr. CRoucH said if the bill had, for a particular purpose,
born Altered after presentment, the fraud was the same as
though a had been altered before, or greater, as it became an
entire new instrument, renewing a liability which had gone by.
The Secolsoasty said before he could be called on to give
an opinion, the mode and time of alteration must be shown.
Mr. Foster, the first indorser of the bill, was called, and
swore he indorsed it on the 6th, and that it then bore date the
btil of June.
The SEcoNoa al, summed up, and said the evidence was
contsailictory, and the question for the jury was, whether they
he;ieved the alteration had been made after the acceptance.
The jary found for the plaintiff.
lkfr. Cstooen moved that the writ should be retained.
SECONDARY said the question of law had riot arisen ;
but even if it had, he was against the argument. The ques-
tion was one of fact for the jury, and he was bound by their
vend is t.
There was a second action pending against the witness
Joseph, Lut not triod.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HO USE.
Thomas Taverner and William Sassons, journeymen car-
penters, were charged under the 4th of George IV., cap. 34,
st e .1, with misconduct in the execution of a contract entered
into aith their employer, Mr. Greenwood, of No. 10, Arthur-
street West. Alderman Moon sat fur the Lord Mayor.
Air. Greenwood stated that he had been engaged to put in a
shop front in a house in Pope's Head-alley. 'Fhe prisoners
were in his employment, and had been directed to perform the
work. Ppon going to the house he found them intoxicated,
and it was ascertained that they had got into that condition in
the cellar of a neighbour of the owner of the house. The shop
trout was completely pulled out and exposed, and lelt in that
condition. Witness paid them weekly.
It was ascertained that the prisoners had gone into the, cellar
of Mr. Leathwaite, in Pope's Head-alley, and made free with
several bottles of wine which had been lately deposited there ;
that half a dozen empty bottles had appeared in the place of
full (mos, to the astonishment of the policeman, who designated
their drunkenness as a " most mysterious intoxication," before
he found that clue to its meaning.
'1 he prisoners, who bad thus committed the two offences,
of misconduct with respect to their contract with their master,
asuet robbery of Mr. Leathwaite, had nothing to say in pallia-
tion but that they had been really drunk, were sentenced to
hard labour in the House of Correction for one month.
Jahn Haygart, a journeyman baker, in the employment of
r. Farlasse, baker, Jewry- street, Aldgate, was charged
*older the same Act with having spoiled a gate
as
bread.
The prisoner had been taken into the service of the pro-
seee,nr as foreman, and had not only got tipsy in his work, and
burned a batch of bread, but actually laughed at the mischief
he committed.
A respectable baker, of Coleman-street, who called at Mr.
Nl•Farlane's house, and saw the condition of the bread, stated
that the batch was quite spoiled.
The prisoner said in his defence that he had a great nunber
of customers to supply, and there never had been made any
ceinpta,:nt whatever of his skill or attention to business.
Alderman MooN said it would appear as if the Act of Par-
liament were not known to be in operation at all, judging from
the innumerable breaches of contract which daily occurred.
lie hoped the press would let journeymen and labourers know
that i hey Auld be sent oft the treadmill tor, as it was generally
•' leaving their employers in the lurch." The annoy-
ances to which men engaged in the most useful occupations
were subjected, in consequence of the gross carelessness and
Jrligeon(lnct of the persons employed by them was incalculable,
Audit should be his endeavour to check the mischief as much
xa possible with the aid of the treadmill.
The prisoner was sent to Bridewell, to take his station on the
treadmill with the two former prisoners.
GUILDHALL.
Twa young men, of respectable appearance, who refused to
give their names at the station-house, and Ito gave fictitious
names when put to the bar, but subsequently described them-
helves as George Symons arid Greenwood Poole, gentlemen,
*vete charged with assaulting a watchman, stationed with a
!intern to prevent vehicles from falling into the sewer in Fleet-
street, which is open for repairs.
This Jones, of New Hall street, Islington, stated that he
was placed as a watchman at the open sewer in Fleet-street.
About half-past two o'clock the prisoners and another gentle-
man came along, and one of them blew a lantern out. Witness
went ty to them and said they were doing very wrong. They
-might occasion great mischief by extinguishing the light. He
went away to light it again, and the prisoners followed him and
broke his hat and lantern, and gave him a kick behind, which
had caused him great pain. It had been deemed necessary to
apply leeches to reduce the inflammation.
William 'Furpin, a scavenger, stated that he was at work in
Fleet-street at the time, and saw the prisoners knock the
*watchman's hat over his eyes, blow out his lantern, and throw
it several yards. It was Poole that blew the candle out.
George Ventom, a City policeman, identified Symons as the
mgr who kicked the watchman.
The defendants did not remember what had occurred, but
the)" were willing to make any recompenst in their power.
Mr. Alderman COVELA.ND said it was very foolish sport to
put out a light set up to warn people against danger, and from
which a terrible accident and loss of life might have ensued.
This disorderly conduct in the street must be repressed, and he
should commit them for the assault, and instruct the City Soli-
cit.r to prosecute them at the expense of the Corporation.
"[hey were ordered to find good bail for their appearance at
Clio. next London Sessions.
James Sprules, an articled clerk to a law-writer in Castle.-
street, Holborn, was charged with assaulting, with intent to
violate, Emma Cook, a servant in the house.
The girl stated that on the evening of the 14th ult. her
master and mistress went to the play. About eleven o'clock
she requested the three apprentices to go up to bed. She went
asp stairs as far as the drawing-room, and one of the young men
(the defendant) left the rest, followed her into the room, tried
to 'et pt:esession of the key, and failing in that, he exposed
himself, and tried to throw her on the carpet. She succeeded
in re-iatiog him. At a later hour he quietly solicited her, and
when she told him she was an orphan, arid her character was
everything to her, he replied, " Oh, never mind that." lie
.ott two or three occasions afterwards behaved indecently to-
awards her.
_Aft% Robinson, for the defendant, said his client was entitled
to tons. property, and probably they would not have heard of
this charge if that had not been the case. Nothing was so
easily made ro a charge of this nature, nor so hard to rebut.
'I he delay which had occurred in making the charge showed it
was not made in the proper spirit. He should show she had,
as it were, courted and sanctioned what really took place.
The girl was cross-examined to show that she had opportu-
nities of complaining to her mistress, but did not use them, and
there had been some chit-chat between her and the apprentices
en the night of the 14th. She complained now because he
cautinued to annoy her. She thought if she overlooked his
sinpropriety of behaviour to her, he would reflect and grow
cool ; but it appeared he did not. She denied that she had
given hint any encouragement.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND was afraid the assault was the re-
sult of foolish " chit-chat" and play, and he declined to take
notiee of the charge, as it was not made more promptly.
The complaint was dismi.sed.
130117-STREET.

Barnet Burns, the New Zealand Chief, better known as
rahe-.- Range, was charged with being drunk and incapable,
in Trafaigst-"quare, at a late hour the previous night.
%vs• not harged with any
aggravatory offence, and was there-
to:eo discharged.
CLERKENIVELL.
Two prisoners were brought before the magistrate
Yveterday for creating disturbances in beer-shops.
It appeared that in each case the police had been called
in to remove turbulent parties.
Mr. COMBE said it might be as well to inform
into
.custody yof.ce that they were not justified in taking parties
tenstociy upon the mere ipso dizit of a publican or beer-
aliille,eper. It would seem from cases which had been
brought before him that the police considered them-
selves at the beck of these persons. Now such was not
the case, and the police should consider that they owed
duty to the public as well as to those persons. They
acted contrary to law in taking persons into custody in
these cases unless they witnessed the assault, or :ome
marks of violence on the person complaining. The
police were in fact made ancillary to putting money into
the publican's pocket, and whilst they were so engaged
were neglecting their real duties.