The Sun.
London, England, 1844-10-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Oct. 5.
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN MYNDE COOKE.

This insolvent, a young man who had been an
attorney in Clifford-street, Bond• street, was opposed
by Mr. E. James, on the part of a Mr. Hugh Strat-
ford Stratford, Mr. Thomas Flight, the money-lender,
and others. He was supported by Mr. M. Chambers
and Mr. C. Smith. Mr. Bagley represented some
creditors who were favourable to the application.
The present was the first case of a prisoner heard
under the new Act. The insolvent had been five
months in the Queen's Prison, and was brought up
on a warrant granted by Mr. Commissioner Evans.
The case occupied nearly three hours, and disclo-ed
some peculiar gambling transactions. The debts on
the schedule were set forth at 40,9891. 10s. 3d., in-
chiding a sum of 24,0001. on a qui tarn action for
gambling. The credits were 1.7891 195., inclu ling
Lord Huntingtower as a debtor. The complaint was
that the insolvent had improperly contracted a debt with
Mr. Flight, the money-lender, and that the general
character of hisschedule called upon the court to refuse
his application on his interim order. It appeared that
the insolvent began business as an attorney in 1842,
and concluded in May, 1843, in which month an in-
junction in Chancery was obtained to restrain the
negotiation of bills of exchange accepted by Mr.
Hugh Stratford Stratford, who now opp Ted. By
the admissions made by the insolvent it was proved
that Mr. Stratford had played at hazard and blind
hookey with a sporting man named Coglan, whom
he met at Chelmsford, and lost 10,8431., for which he
gave his acceptances. Stratford, Coglan, and a female
played when the insolvent " played." The insolvent
won 5,0001. of Coglan, and 4001. of Stratford, and he
(the insolvent) got from Coglan 4,5001. of the accept-
ances given by Stratford for the large sum lost to
Coglan of upwards of 10,0001. He denied that he
had " shared" the winnings with Coglan. Two of
the 1,0001. bills were discounted by Flight for 1,6441.,
the rest being deducted as interest on short dates.
The principal question was the representations made
to obtain the discount, and on that point the evidence
was very conflicting. It was stated that the insolvent
had represented that he had the bills from his client
to get discounted, as he was about to marry a Baro-
net's daughter, and required some money ; and it was
sworn by him, and confirmed by a clerk, who heard
through a " canvas partition," that he mentioned that
they were given- for a gambling affair. Two wit-
nesses on each side gave the version stated.
Mr. Commissioner Evaris eventually held that the
debt had been contracted in fraud, and that he gave
evidence to the statement of the creditor. The very
reason in the case showed that a person would not
state that the bills were given for a gambling debt, as
that would prevent the recovery of the amount. He
should refuse the application.
Mr. JAMES asked the court to dismiss the petition,
which was resisted on the statement that the bona fide
debts were under 1,0001., and some of the creditors
wished the property in the case to be protected.
The COURT acquiesced, and instead of dismissing the
petition, refused to name a day for the final order.
Mr. SMITH asked the court to name a distant day
when the insolvent might again appear. He had al-
ready been five months in confinement.
The COURT refused the application, and the insolvent
was remanded to prison.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.
THE QUEEN V. MYERS AND OTHERS.

On Saturday Abraham Myers (alias Samuel Myers),
Mary Smith (alias Mary Johnson), and Elizabeth
Nelson, surrendered to receive the judgment of the
Court for keeping a house of ill-fame in the parish of
St. George, Hanover-square. The defendant Myers
was sentenced to three months imprisonment in the
House of Correction, with hard labour, and to enter
into his own recognisances on his discharge in the
sum of 1001., and to find two responsible housekeepers
to be bound in the sum of 501. each, for his good be •
haviour for the ensuing twelve months. The sen-
tence of Mary Smith was that she be kept to hard
labour in the same gaol for two months, and on her
discharge to find two sureties of 501. each, to be
answerable for her good behaviour for twelve months.
Elizabeth Nelson was sentenced to one month, with
hard labour, in the same gaol, and to enter into, on
her discharge, her own recognizances of 201., and to
fincl, two 101. bail for her good conduct for twelve
months.