The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 1.
PRICE V. ALLINGHAM.
This was an action by James Price, an attorney's
clerk, against Mr. Allingham, an attorney of Hat-
ton-garden, his late employer, to recover damages
for having given him such a character as prevented
him from obtaining another situation.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consideration,
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 701.
THE KING V. J. R. SEYMOUR, ESQ.
This is the case from Salisbury, which has un-
dergone so much discussion. It now stands for ar-
gument on a rule nisi for a new trial obtained by
Mr. Seijeant Wilde.
Mr. COLERIDGE mentioned the case this morning.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said it was intended to be
argued in full court.

BUSINESS OF TUE COURT.

Lord TENTERDEN, it will be recollected, intimated
last week that all cases appointed to be heard before
the Judges sitting in banco after term, under the
authority of his Majesty's warrant, in which the
parties (counsel or attornies) were rot in attend-
ance when they were called on, would be struck out
of the paper, and no excuse be allowed for their re-
storation. The Court has since issued a notice,.
which it seems important should be generally known.
The reason of so many cases being struck out of
the paper at the last sitting in October was the
absence of counsel and attornies, in consequence of
a general misunderstanding as to the particular cases
which the Court intended to take; for, although
their Lordships issued a written notice, as they
have done on the present occasion, it did not, we
believe, gain general publicity. A list has now
been put up of the cases intended to be heard, and
the Court has issued the following notice :
" Country new trials (except those tried before
Lord Tenterden) in the order in which
,they stand
on the paper.
" Special cases will be taken in the order in
which they stand, unless previous application, upon
special grounds, be made to the Court.
" All cases in which Counsel are not in attend-
ance will he struck out, unless it shall appear to the
Court, upon the statement of Counsel, or of one of
the attornies in the cause, that in cases in the special
paper the Counsel who has been instructed to argue
on one side, is,—or in those in the new trial paper
all the counsel on oneside are,—absent from to wit, ill,
or unavoidably engaged in Nisi Prins ; under which
circumstances the special cases will be allowed to
remain. If the Counsel on one side are in attend-
ance, and those on the other absent, without such
excuse, judgment will be given in favour of the
former."

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 1.
The Court was occupied during the whole of to-
day, and until past ten o'clock at night, with the
trial of the cause of " Key v. Goodwin," which in-
volved the same question as that of" Key v. Shaw,"
recently tried in this Court,—namely, whether or
not Mr. Sherwin, the bookseller of Paternoster-
row, committed an act of bankruptcy between May,
1821, and March, 1822. The Jury found a verdict
for the defendant.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DEc. 1.
George William Burgh, who represented himself
in this schedule as part proprietor of an intended
subscription-house ut No. 56, Pall-mall, was op-
posed by Mr. WOODROFFE on behalf of Messrs.
Att..vell and Elliott, tailors, of No. 31, Great Pnl-
teney-street.
The insolvent stated, in the course of his exa-
mination by Mr. Woadroffe, that in ;1828 he en-
tered into an agreement with a person named George
Tidmarsh (who was very recently discharged in this
Court) to take a house, No. 56, Pall-mall, from a
Mr. Moses, an auctioneer, in Bond-street, at a
rental of 42/. per month, for the purpose of con-
verting it into a club-house, under the tide of the
" Northampton Club-house." There had been no
subscribers to the house, and the furniture, &c.,
was seized in May last by the ground landlord. Ile
never lived in Liverpool-street, but he was in 1828
it clerk to the firm of Alloyce and Co., which had a
counting-house there. He was there only three or
four months. Alloyce and Co. were French mer-
chants. lie never saw the names of Alloyce and
Co., and Burgh, in the Swindlers' List, indeed he
did not know any such list. He had described himself
in his schedule for the last six or seven years:as a bill-
broker. He recollected some bill transactions hav-
ing been inquired into at Marlborough-street po-
lice-office, in 1825. At that time he held a bin of a
gentleman named Haynes, for 2,0001., as a colla-
teral security for about 400/., which Mr. Haynes
owed hint. Ile passed the bill to Mr. Bell, a
soap-maker, for 2001. or 3001, and the bill has
since been negotiated in France, proceedings re-
specting which are now pending in Chancery. In
February, 1824, a person named George Stevenson
West assigned to him a certain sum in the hands of
the Accountant-General, which assignment was
lodged in the hands of his attornies, Messrs. Con-
stable and Kirk, as a security for their costs. While
endeavouring to establish the Northampton Club-
.. house, Messrs. Atwell and Elliot were introduced

to him by a person named Pooke. They supplied
him and various persons connected with the este-
bishment with clothes. He swore that he always
went by the name of Burgh only. He never gave
the name of De Burg, Barge, or Whitebarge, nor
(lid he ever desire any body to call him Whitebarge
in the presence of Mr. Atwell or Mr. Elliott. He
had a person named Irish in the establishment but
he never desired that person to call him by any
other name than Burgh.
Mr. George Atwell, one of the opposing credi-
tors, had supplied the insolvent with clothes, and
made splendid liveries for the servants of the esta-
blishment in Pall-mall. with buttons having the
initials N.C. (Northampton club-house) upon them.
He was introduced to the insolvent, who stated his
name Whitebarge, and at witness's request a per-
son present wrote the name, and witness copied it
intolhis order-book. If he had known that the in-
solvent's name was Burgh or de Bourg, he would
not have suppliedPim with any thing upon credit.
John Pooke, who was brought up from the
Fleet-prison to give his evidence, was the person
who introduced Mr. Atwell, for the first time, to
the insolvent. The insolvent desired him to call
him Whitebarge, as there was a great prejudice ex-
isting against the name of De Burgh. When the
name of Whitebarge was given to Mr. Atwell, he
asked how it was spelt; and at the insolvent's re-
quest, witness:wrote it on a piece of paper. He had
seen the name of "Baron de Burgh" in the public
papers, and he (witness) thought that was the in-
solvent ; but be has since learnt that that person
was his brother.
Mr. WOODROFFE submitted that the insolvent
ought to be remanded, to re-advertise his descrip-

tion.
Mr. Commissioner HARMS delivered the judg-
ment of the Court. They did not think, as the in-
solvent had only assumed a different name in the
case of Mr. Atwell, it was necessary to re•advertise.
With respect to Messrs. Atwell's debt, there was
no doubt that it was fraudulently contracted, and
the judgment of the Court therefore was that the
insolvent be remanded for a period of eight calendar
months from the date of filing his petition.