The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-05 00:00:00

BAILEY V. MEALY.

The plaintiff in this case was a chemist residing in
Broad-street, Bloomsbury, and the action was brought
to recover from the defendant, who is a barrister, the
sum of 451. 14s. 4d. It appeared the defendant pur-
chased the copyright of the Medical Times for 151.
from the defendant, on the 6th of October, 1841, and
agreed to pay Lid. a number for the back stock, which
amounted to the sum claimed. Numbers to the
amount of 7 over 7,000 were stated to have been de-
livered by the plaintiff, but it was denied, on the part
of the defendant, that so many were delivered, and
that a bill of exchange to the amount of 141.,
given by the defendant to the plaintiff, together with
some other payments, was a sufficient set-off. A wit-
ness was produced who proved that he took numbers
to the amount of several thousands to the defendant,
and tickets of their receipt were given in evidence,
signed by Mr. Mcltitchie, the publisher of the Medical
Times ; but it was contended on the part of the de-
fendant that there was collusion between Mr.
chic and the plaintiff.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the Jury found for
the plaintiff damages to the amount of 28/. 12s. 3fd.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 4.
TINDAL AND ANOTHER V. DELL AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs for
injuries done to a vessel of theirs by a collision in
the British Channel with a vessel the property of the
defendants. The case had been tried before Mr. Jus-
tice Wightman at the last assizes at Bristol, and a
verdict was found for the plaintiffs in the sum of 2551.
for the damage they had sustained.
Mr. Sergeant liompas now applied for a rule to
show cause why this verdict should not be increased by
a further sum of 1241. It appeared that after the colli-
sion theraptain of the plaintiffs' vessel found it necessary
to employ a steam-tug to tow her up to Bristol. For
this service the master of the tug claimed salvage of
150/. :co this claim the plaintiffs objected as unrea-
sonable, but of 201., which was more than the
usual amount of hiring. The case was brought before
the Court of Admiralty, who awarded the proprietor
of the steam-tug a salvage of 45/. The legal expenses
incurred by the plaintiffs in taking the case before the
Admiralty amounted to 124/. ; and this was the sum
which the Learned Sergeant sought to have added to
that previously awarded by the Jury. The expense
thus incurred, he contended, was fairly chargeable on
the defendants, as the exorbitant claim of the proprie-
tor of the steam-tug had been resisted for their bene-
fit, inasmuch as they would have been chargeable with
the amount.

The COURT immediately granted the rule.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 4.
IN RE FREDERICK JOSEPH HARRISON.

The bankrupt in this case had carried on business as
a ship broker in Thames-street. The aggregate
amount of debts in his schedule was upwards of
25,0001., and the available assets at present realised
by the assignees were about 4,0001. in ready money.
Several coupon and other French securities, along
with some American debts, comprising chiefly promis-
sory notes from the house of Sealy and Co., of New
York, who had become bankrupt about two years ago,
would likewise be made so far available to the estate
as to ensure a dividend upon the whole of 10s. in the
pound to the creditors.
This day being appointed for the bankrupt passing
his final examination, he stated that he became pos-
sessed of the American securities in lieu of goods
which were consigned to Mr. Hemlin at New York,
who sent back letters of credit upon Messrs. Sealy's
consignees in London. Shortly after Sealy's bank-
ruptcy a dividend was declared, and it was calculated
that about 10,000 dollars would be available in a few
months. He had proved for the full amount of his
debt against that estate. Having answered the usual
interrogatories, and sworn to the truth of his accounts,
he was declared entitled to pass his final examination.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

THE LONDON CAOUTCIIOUC COMPANT.—Yesterday
Mr. James Morley, of the firm of J. and R. Morley,
of No. 18, Wood- street, Cheapside, accompanied by
Mr. Bevan, of the Old Jewry, solicitor, and about fifty
of the most respectable hosiers from the City and
West End, appeared before Sir Peter Laurie, to com-
plain against the London Caoutchouc_ Company. The
scene was one of the most extraordinary description.
Mr. Morley stated that lie had to complain of the
conduct of certain parties, representing themselves to
be the " London Caoutchouc Company," and profess-
ing to sell articles made of India rubber, the interest
in three-fourths of which Company he believed to be
vested in Mr. William Leaf, of the Old 'Change, in
having filed 55 bills in Chancery against the retail
hosiers in the metropolis for an alleged infringement
of their patent. The articles alleged to be pirated
were those into which strips of India-rubber were in-
troduced, surrounded by thread, and so covered over
that it was impossible for any one to discover whether
they were or were not similar to the articles manufac-
tured by the Company.
Sir PETER LAURIE said he had acquainted himself
with the nature of the article, and inquired whether
any one was present in behalf of the factors ?
Mr. Warne, the secretary of the Company, and Mr.
Wight, of Percy-street, Bedford-street, then pre-
sented themselves upon the part of the Company. Mr.
Leaf, to whom it was stated notice had been sent,
was not in attendance.

Mr. Morley continued.—The first intimation given
to the parties was the service of the writs, in some
instances in a very offensive manner, requiring them
to appear and answer a bill in Chancery filed by Mr.
atliNo'nh,enthetyhem,p,earretietsoladpptliiieedy M. Wight
flr\i'niggehdt
Wight, in the name of the London Caoutchouc
for information,
the Company's rights, but that he was willing to com-
promise the matter, and in many instances they were
induced, through intimidation and ignorance of the
awful proceedings with which they were menaced, to
large sums, varying from 151. to 70/. Mr.
pa
asked much larger sums than he eventually
consented to take, his principle being apparently to
get as much as he could.—(Laughter.) In one in-
stance he asked 45/. of a respectable tradesman, de-
claring that less would not pay him, but he was at
last satisfied with 15/.—(Laughter.)The great op-
pression and cruelty in those proceedings on the part
of the Company was in selecting as victims the retail
dealers, who were struggling for an honest sub-
sistence, difficult in such times to be obtained, in-
stead of boldly attacking the manufacturers of the
article complained of, who, if any were really liable,
must be the parties to answer, and who could
afford
to spend 1,000/. if need be,
lad
to stop Chancery. proceedings, at the sacrifice of thein contesting. the right.
glad
to wonder that some of these parties should be
of such proceedings
better acquainted with the nature
in' the same manner.
sums set forth in the list, when many who were
would probably have acted
read
compromised upon being
threatened of the parties who had _ a
threatened with Chancery proceedings by Mr. Wight,
Sir P. LAURIE here the list of the names. of
lernan. It was as follows:
compromised with that gent
... £2l 0 0
and of the amount for which these tradesmen had
James Beale, Bond-street
Gilbert Wilson,
Oxford-street .... 25 0 0
Cornhill
Goy and Evans, 20 00
J. and B. Taylor, ditto
20 00
E. and J. Burch, Great Russell- street 20 0 0
Samuel Barton, Strand
, 21 0 0
John Lord, Burlington-arcade
John Jowett, Conduit-street ...... 30 0 0
Thomas Flint, 337, Oxford-street ...
Charles Fossett, 76, Quadrant ... ..
2210 00 0
Alfred Faulkner, 107, Regent-street 21 0 0
0
Foster Porter, and Co, 1.)4,11'
Jeffery Ludlam, 174, Piccadilly .. 16 16 0
Ood-s.t.. 70 0 0
Samuel Morgan, 173, Strand
Laurie, said he certainly
Mr. Ilobler, uponls 0 0
Smith and Withen, Poultry
being referred to by Sir Peter
elsewhere a stop wouldnseL'enrphuetartod
tern, and that if what had been stated could be proved
be •
MT. 111orle,--I iot.f such a sys-
tem,
n a case of such a nature, of so ex-
tremely oppressive a description to a large body of
tradesmen, it is most important to have the opinion of
Sir Peter Laurie, to whom tradesmen are already
under the greatest obligations. A letter has been this
mornini, received from Brighton; stating that Chan-
-0
eery proceedings had been instituted by the Company
against retailers there ; and parcels have been, we are
assured, brought from Bath, which have been pur-
chased of shopkeepers there, and upon which the soli-
citor to the Association means to take proceedings.
P. LAvETE—As far as I can judge, from what
hasSairppPeared before me, this mode of getting. money
by the compromise of Chancery proceedings, is likely
to be more profitable to the Association than their
professed business.—(Laughter, and applause.)
gr. Warne— Whatever the solicitor to the Com-
pany gets by these proceedings, not one farthing goes
to the Company.
Sir P. LAURlE—Certainly, if we may judge from
the profits of the solicitor employed to protect the in-
terests of the Company, the Company itself must be
an admirable one. I never heard of-such a system in
all my experience. It is clear to.rae that the Com-
pany are responsible to every man who ba.s,been ap-
plied to and been induced to din 6
through apprehension, in order to stop pros 8 I
part with ha money

.