The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-05 00:00:00

IN THE MATTER OF - RAT.

The insolvent in this case came up for his finaliorder, and
was described as a clergyman of White's Chapel, White's-
row, Spitalfields. lie was supported by Mr. Buchanan, soli-
citor, and opposed by Mr. Cooke, for several creditors.
After an examination of the insolvent, the further hearing
was adjourned for a few days, when we shall give a detailed
account of the proceedings.
(Before Mr. Commissioner EvANs.)
THE LAMBETIT UNION BREWERY-IN RE - GURNEY.

The bankrupt carried on business as a brewer at Lambeth-
walk, and this day came up to pass his final examination.
The debts and liabilities were stated to be about 12,5001., con-
tracted within a very few years.

It appeared from the statement of Mr. Lawrance, who op-
posed tke application upon the part of Mr. Chapman, that
the latter had, upon certain representations made to him, en-
tered into partnership with the bankrupt, to whom he ad-
vanced 6,800/., besides a subsequent advance of upwards of
2,000/., in addition to which there were bills outstanding,
accepted by Gurney, in the name of the firm, to an extent of
which Mr. Chapman was wholly unaware, and the assets were
next to nothing.
The bankrupt, in examination by Mr. Lawrence, stated
to the best of his belief, that the list now handed to him con-
tained the whole of his debts and liabilities, as well joint as
separate.
Mr. Banks, the bankrupt's accountant, stated several bills
were still outstanding, and which were not contained in the
list before the bankrupt. The banker's book alone would
show the appropriation of the moneys which he received, and
as the accounts had not yet been gone through, he could not
explain them. In yearly dealings, to the amount of nearly
30,000/., he could not show what particular amounts were
drawn at particular periods, and it was impossible for him
to say to what extent the banker's book would show the
appropriation of the moneys which were lodged there. He
was indebted to Mr. Carruthers 8451. 1 ls. for bills discounted
by him, and Mr. Chapman knew it, although the books con-
tained no entry of it. The sum of 2,681/. 3s. 2d. had been
borrowed by him from his father, Mr. J. Gurney, of Farring-
don. street. Before Mr. Chapman became his partner he
(the bankrupt) gave his father the bills which he now held
for that amount, and Mr. Chapman knew the occasion why
he wanted them. That money was used for the purposes of
the brewery, the plant, the casks, the drays, &c. That he
would positively swear, although that sum was advanced at
least three years before the partnership. His brother, James
Gurney, held his acceptance for 1,072/. 38. 11d., for money
advanced by him.
Mr. Commissioner EvAxs--Will your book show when
you received these moneys, and how you appropriated them ?
—.lt will not, Sir.

By Mr. LAWRANCE-I see you put down a person of the
name of Saltmer as a creditor, and also Messrs. Lee, Bons-
field, and Co. ; and now I wish to ask you, did you ever
mention to Mr. Chapman that you had had any dealings
with them I—l think I had some conversation with Mr.
Chapman about them, and also about Mr. Carruthers. The
truth is that I got money wherever I could get it, and it
is pcssiOle, at least I apprehend it is possible, that I had
some conversation with Mr. Chapman about it.
Will you swear you ever mentioned the name of Saltmer
to Mr. Chapman ?—Yes, as I think, and I apprehend that he
has seen him with me. Saltmer was in the habit of obliging
me by obtaining discounts of bills to the amount of some
thousands, at the rate of 71/x,lO, and 12 per cent., and at long
dates (a year), at 15 per cent. I will not swear, however,
that I ever mentioned to Mr. Chapman that Saltmer was in
the habit of discounting bills for me. The goods supplied to
the brewery are in the bill-book, but it contains no account
of any one of these bills to which my attention has just now
been called.

Mr. LAWRANCE—I apprehend, your Honour, that under
these circumstances, and no balance-sheet having been filed,
that this is a clear case for an adjournment sine die, though
in some cases (like the present) the justice of the case is not
met by such an adjournment.
The case was then adjourned sine die.

STIERIFFS' COURT, Dec. 4.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCMILLL.)
CLEMETT V. BRADBEE.

The plaintiff in this action is the proprietor of Clemett's
Inn, Old Bailey, and the defendant is a fringe manufacturer,
in Newgate-street. The claim was for 71. 10s., for one quar-
ter's rent of a part of a warehouse in the inn yard.
The defendant pleaded that be was not indebted. _ _ _

Mr. MANMNG stated the case. The defendant had for
some years occupied an upper floor in the warehouse in
question, but in Michaelmas last he removed to a lower floor.
In January or February following he tendered the key to
plaintiff, who refused to accept it, insisting on receiving
notice. Defendant, however, left the key with a clerk
in the counting-house, and paid the second quarter's
rent, but it was clear that the merely leaving the key
did not exonerate him from his contract. With
respect of the tenancy, it was laid down in
"Roscoe on Evidence," that it was sufficient to prove occu-
pation to render it prima facie evidence that there was a
general hiring which entitled the landlord to notice. The
present was a case of constructive occupation during the time
for.,which the rent was claimed, and it was laid down that if
a party might have bad occupation, ancl roluntarily refrained,
he was still liable, even though it bill to let the premises was
put up, unless the premises are actually let to another tenant,
which would be a legal surrender.
Witnesses were called, who prayed the actual occupation
for four or five months, and the payment of one quarter's rent.
Mr. THOMAS submitted that there was no evidence of a
general biting. It was true that it had been proved that
defendant had occupied the premises for about four months,
and it was admitted that he had paid half a year's rent.
That this did not prove a general hiring, but the contrary,
and that plaintiff inugpe npsuited.-;
Mr. MANNING repeated that the geheralldring was implied
13ftliefayment of rent unleis thecontrary was shown.
, The tittoga-Sitenter-Suppoise alperson went to Brightoal
and took a house for three months, is it to be implied that
it was a yearly tenancy ?
Mr. MANNING—Certainly; mta the'sontrary is shown.
said that there was no proof that hiring was
- The UNDza-Smattire'—l am notpnspared to say that.
Mr.. Thomas
nce
nsufli
in
ejloims:mpyaotir:e. ai
considered the
'not for a quarter or, baliVe!l", and applieei for leave.to move
the Court above to. enter a non,pyit, supposing the Court
The 17xim-SHERIFF replied generalthe -
fentlant Would submit tb a verdict now.
Mr.-Thomas said that' the plaintiff' ottiit to submit to a
nonsuit.-,

Mr. MANNING refused. ' - -
Mr.. THOMAS said his :client Would not consent to a ver-
dict, but would go to the jury on the merits of the we.
Witnesses were then called, who deposed that the plaintiff
let the upper floor without the knowledge, of defendant, who
complained at the place being let over his bead. They were
friendly it that time, and plaintiff said that he hoped de-
fendant would go down to the floor below; for, if possession
was not given to the other party, an action would be brought.
Defendant said rather 4han that should be he would have
the under door, pros idi ig the plaintiff also let defendant have
a granary, and made certain alterations; that defendant gave
up possession, but the granary was not given up, nor the re-
pairs made • in consequence, great part of the work was
done by candle light, and a large quantity of material was
spoilt, and defendant was in consequence obliged to remove
his machinery, and that plaintiff had said several timee that
he would not make the repairs, and that they were a set of
liars, &c., and the sooner they got out the better; be would
rather have the place for a hay-loft than they should remain,
and defendont then sent the key. That when plaintiff after-
wards called for his rent at Lady-day, he merely said he
ought to have another quarter's rent ; but defendant said
"No; I have given up before the quarter is due, and you
have bad two months' occupation." Plaintiff accepted the
quarter's rent, and said very well.
Mr. MANNING, in reply, questioned the veracity of the wit-
nesses, and contended that nothing had been shown to prove
there had been a general hiring. and if there had not been
then no surrender could be made except in writing, that was
either by notice or, agreement; that was provided in the
" Statute of Frauds."
The UNDER-SHERIFF—Or unless the key is accepted.
Mr. THOMAS—Or unless they were not in tenantable re-
pair or saying a person might go as soon as be liked.
The UNDER-SHERIFF—If the granary was not delivered up
according to agreement, there is an end to the case.
Mr. MANNING disputed that there was such an agreement.
The UNDER-SHERIFF, in summieg up, said the question
was whether the defendant actually had possession according
to agreement ; if he had not he would not be liable. The
question was whether the agreement bad been carried out;
the next question was whether, if there had been such a con-
tract, the plaintiff had accepted the key. The plaintiff was
not bound to send back the key although he refused to ac-
cept. The statute of frauds might or not affect the case, it
depended on the evidence ; the merely saying, " You may
go wheii you like" would not be sufficient unless it was fol-
lowed up by the actual acceptance of the key, but if it was
then the surrender was perfect.
"Verdict for the plaintiff for 71. 10s.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
Wednesday, George Elliott, a tailor, was indicted for stealing
a chest. la shirts, and various other articles, value 71., the
property of John Balls.
From the evidence of the prosecutor, who is also a sea-
man, it appeared that he had placed his trunk, containing
the articles in question, together with a hammock, on board
an outward bound vessel, but having absented himself, his
Bnods were sent ashore, and left at a house kept by a Mr.
rowne. Upon learning that fact, he went to inquire for
them, but was told that they had been taken away. He
met the prisoner afterwards, and asked him what he had
done with his clothes. He told him he had left them at
Browne's. The prosecutor ultimately gave him into custody,
and, upon searching him at the station-house, one of the:pro-
secutor's shirts was found upon his back, and another con-
cealed upon his person. •
The jury found him Guilty.
Sentence, three motto, with had labour.