The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-02 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 1.

'Sittings after Term, before the LORD CHIEF BARON and a
Common Jury.)
BEATON V. TIMMS.

This was an action of debt for money had and received, to
which the plaintiff had pleaded that he never was indebted.
Mr. Jarvis appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Branwell for
_

Le defendant.

Mr. JARVIS stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff was
a gentlemen of property, residing in the Mile-end-road, and
the defendant an auctioneer, carrying on business in Char-
lotte-street, Fitzroy-square, but the real defendants were
Messrs. William and Henry Jubb, who had professed them-
selves to be the owners of certain copyhold property on the
west side of the Uxbridge-road. On the 16th of July in the
last year a portion of this property was put up for sale by
auction, and the plaintiff became the purchaser of one lot for
1991. 10s., and in accordance with the conditions of sale the
plaintiff paid the defendant on the spot twenty-five per
cent. on the purchase-money, and a clear half of the
auction duty, and the two sums together amounted to
551. 6s. The conditions of sale provided that an abstract of
title should be delivered to the purchaser within seven days
after the sale, and all objection to such abstract of title were
to be made within ten days after its delivery. The abstract
was delivered at the plaintiff's residence within the seven
days, but the plaintiff being from home at the time, the ac-
curacy of the title could not be inquired into,
or objections made to it within the specified ten
days. On his return home, however, the plaintiff forwarded
the abstract to his solicitor, who ascertained that Nichols,
the party from whom Messrs. Jubb purchased the property
was an insolvent at the time the sale to them took place.
They therefore applied to the defendant to return the deposit
money to the plaintiff, but it was urged that the objection
was not made within ten days after the delivery of the ab-
stract, and therefore the sale ought to be completed.
Evidence was then adduced to prove those facts, after
which
Mr. BRANWELL addressed the jury for the defendant.
He admitted some of the facts stated by his Learned Friend,
but denied that Nichols became an insolvent previous to his
transferring the property to Messrs. Jubb. The fact was,
that in 1833 Nichols,who was a tax-collector, was a defaulter
to the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes to a considerable
amount, and the copyhold property in question, of which he
was then possessed, was sold by the Crown, as well as some
other freehold property, under a writ of extent. The wife, how-
ever, of Nichols, who had an interest in the copyhold property,
refused to sanction the surrender of the copyhold property,
and her husband was thrown into gaol to compel her to
agree to the sale. At length she did consent, and, her hus-
band being liberated, the property was transferred to Messrs.
Jubb, and Nichols subsequently took the benefit of the In-
solvent Debtors' Act.
A number of witnesses were called to substantiate this
statement, including Nichols himself, who denied that he
ever made the arrangement alluded to by the Learned Coun-
sel ; but one or two of the witnesses positively asserted that
he did.
Mr. BRANWELL intimated that at the time this arrange-
ment was made, it was reduced to writing, and he proposed
to put this agreement in.
Mr. JARVIS—IS it stamped?
Mr. BRANWELL—NO, it is not.
Mr. JAnvis—Then I shall object to its being put in.
Mr. BRANWELL contended, that as it was an agreement
between Nichols and the Crown, it did not require a stamp.
The Loan CHIEF BARON ruled that it did, and rejected the
agreement as evidence.
Mr. BRANWELL asked his Lordship to take a note of the
objection, and it was subsequently agreed that the plaintiff
should take a verdict, with liberty to the defendant to move
for a verdict or a nonsuit next term.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, Nov. 29.

IN THE MATTER OF PYRE'S BANKRUPTCY.-EXTRAORDI

NARY SCENE.

This was a meeting specially appointed under the
bankruptcy of John Pyke, of Old Steyne, Brighton,
jeweller, to test the validity of an execution put into the
bankrupt's premises by one Mr. Samuel, a resident in
the neighbourhood of Duke's-place.
Mr. Samuel, the creditor, an aged man, was called by
the solicitor for the assignees, for the purpose of showing
that the execution was invalid and untenable, and that
his transactions with the bankrupt had not been so ex-
tensive as had been represented. Mr. Samuel under-
went a lengthened examination, in the course of which
it transpired that his dealings with Pyke were but as a
drop in the ocean compared with his moneyed transac-
tions. The witness described himself as a general dealer
in everything, from a needle to an anchor. "In fact
(added the witness), I am ready to make a pargain and
have a dealing with anypody, from a penny to any
amount."—(Laughter.)
The Learned COMMISSIONER gave a significant glance
at the meanly attired appearance of the judgment credi-
tor, and shook his head.

In answer to the Learned Commissioner,

Mr. Samuel said, that when he had dealings NNith a
person of such respectability, he did not sometimes take
any security at all. Indeed, the same party owed him
8,000/ besides the bill, which he Mt was very safe. He
frequently advanced 5001., and sometimes 5,0001., on a❑
I 0 U. lie did so much that it was impossible for him
to be looking at his papers for every leetle ting.—(Much
laughter.)
The COMMISSIONER—Have you any bill-book ? Mr.
Samuel—No, I keep no pill book. I stick my pills on
de file, and, as they pecome due, I have them presented,
and if they be not paid at the time, den afterwards I get
the nionish for them the best way I can.

Mr. Samuel, with a peculiar expression, cast his eyes
upon the Learned Commissioner, and emphatically re-
marked—lf your Honour, Sir, doubts the truth of my
statement, I have a few little matters in my pocket.
(Here the witness pulled out a piece of paper, which
was handed to the Court, and to the amazement of all
present it turned out to be a bill of exchange for 10,0001.,
and, from the extreme caution to conceal the name of the
acceptor, great curiosity was manifested.)
The solicitor for the assignees inquired if the witness
knew the exact number of bills he took in a year ? to
which the son of Israel acutely replied, " Do you know
how many briefs you have in a year ?"—(Roars of
laughter.)
The solicitor next inquired respecting a pearl neck-
lace, of great value, received by him from the bankrupt,
when Mr. Samuel said he had not sold it to a Mr. Le-
vington, but he had " swopped" it away when he was
over in France. He admitted that every pearl in the
necklace was disposed of for 3/. each.
In confirmation of his wealth, Mr. Samuel produced
two cases of most costly jewellery, which were handed
up to the Learned Commissioner, and his HONOUR,
having inspected the same, observed (in reference to the
numerous robberies of hats, cloaks, and umbrellas in the
Court), that this was anything but a proper place to
exhibit such valuables.
The witness throughout gave his evidence with the
greatest nonchalance, and the result, in this case, as in
many others, was, that the children of Israel spoiled the
Egyptians.

DECEMBER 1.
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
IN RE STOKES.

The insolvent, who had been an attorney's clerk, came up
by adjournment for his final order, and was opposed on the
ground that he had vexatiously defended an action.
The facts of the case were these :—The insolvent was in-
debted to the firm of Lyall, who sold the debt to a person
named Godsdell, who had himself subsequently become
bankrupt. An action, however, was brought in the name of
Messrs. Lyall, which was defended by the insolvent, and the
cost run up to upwards of 1001. The insolvent complained
that the case was not fairly gone into at the trial, and that
his evidence was material to show that his defence was not
vexatious, and that the testimony of Mr. Lyall was also
necessary, and the case was adjourned for his attendance this
day, but he was not in Court in consequence of absence in the
country.
Dir. Hughes contended that the insolvent was entitled to