The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-30 00:00:00

MCi)i

V ICE- CIM - ^ELL OR 8' COURT, April 28.
His flonout the Vice'-Chancellor of England took motions
A T
ssessed any points of interest, except
.
to-day, note of which po.
to the parties concerned.
engaged timing the morning in disposing
(3efore Vice-L'lancellor BirucE.)
His Horton R. was
of motions, none of which were t.'r sufficient; importance to
justify a report. 1... he Court rose at tquarter-past twelve.
Aram 29.
The Vice-Chancelk‘r of England was ocenri.ed the whole
morning with hearing 3,tlort causes and unopposed- petitions.
(Before Vic,'-Chancellor WIGRAW.)
SEAS'. El V. KEN VON.
The hearing of tins taus e, which came before the Court on
further directions, was conchs ded this morning. The case was
referred back to the Master, to inquire as to the term of the
marriage settlement.

CO UR T OF (44:TEEN'S BENCH, April 28.
(Shtit. e.s in Banco.)
The Court this morning eavi arguments in cases in the
New Trial Paper, none of whit.Vwere of any public interest.
APRIL 29.
n
The Court was occupied in he:ring arguments cn cases i
-
the Special Paper. The points arg6 led were of a purely tech
nical nature.

BAIL COURT, Aprit 29-
itig motions,
(Mr. Justine COLERIDGE preside.`.)
The Court was occupied to-day in hear
which, except to the parties immediately comserned, were
wholly uninteresting.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April'
TUCKER V.

This, which in substance was an application for a prohibition
to stop proceedings instituted by the defendant in the Eeclesi-
astical Court, came before the Court by way of action. A verdict
was found for the plaintiff, to set aside which a rule was obtained
by Mr. Sergeant itlanning, for the purpose of bringing the
case, which is altogether one of law, before the full Court. Mr.
Sergeant Channel this day showed cause against the rule,
and Mr. Sergeant Manning replied. The circumstances
out of which it - occurred were these :—A lady, named
Sarah Inman, dying in her husband's lifetime, made a will,
in which she appointed him her executer. The husband dying
also, the defendants applied to the Ecclesiastical Court to prevent
the plaintiff- (the surviving executor) from administering, on
the ground that the will was invalid, being made by a femme
co:merle. The. answer to this was that she had the consent
of her husband, and so the Jury found. The defendant ob •
tained the present rule on the ground that such amount was
not sufficient. The arguments occupied the Court from its
sitting to a late hour, when their Lordships took time to consider.
Aram 29.
BRADBURY V. CHRIST'S HOSPITA!..

This was an action against the Governess, &c., of Christ's
Hospital, to recover compensation in damages for injury done
to the business, goods, and premises of the plaintiff, through the
illegal stopping up of the footway leading to his shop, by a
" hoard ;' and through the regligence, carelessness, and un-
skilfulness of their agents and servants, in taking down a eel--
tain house, in doing which several bricks were thrown through
the skylights of plaintiff's warehouse, and goods to the amount
of 700/. were damaged.
The verdict was for the plaintiff, and subsequently a rule for
a new trial was obtained for the defendant, and on Monday last
the Court was occupied the whole day in hearing the arguments
thereon, which, by agreement, came on again this dav, upon a
cross rule, and, after hearing Mr. Peacock for the defendant,
and Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Addison for the plaintiff,
the Court took time to consider its judgment.
The points at issue are merely technical, and depend upon a
variance in the wording of the licenses from the Lord Mayor
and the parish surveyor, and also upon the terms of the declara-
tion. They will be best understood from a report of the
judgment of the Court.

Co UI?T OF EXCHEQUER, April 23.
The Court was occupied during the morning with hearing the
part-heard case of Bain v. Cooper. The points raised were of
a purely technical character, and presented no question of
general Interest.

APRIL 29.
IN RE AN ATTORNEY.
Sergeant. LUDLOW applied to the Court to know in
what manner he should frame an application to bring under the
notice of the Court the conduct of an attorney who had ap-
peared fur the defendant in a horse case, which had been
tried before Mr. Justice Coleridge at the Gloucester Assizes.
A witness had been subpoenaed en the part of the plaintiff,
for the purpose of proving the hand-writing of the defendant.
'I ha witness, however, had absconded on the night before the
trial. The plaintiff then subpcened the attorney for the de-
fendant, with a view either to prove the hand-writing or to
have some light thrown upon the absence of the witness.
After this proceeding had been talo=n the hand-writing of the de..
fendant was admitted; the attorney was not therefore, examined,
and a verdict was found fur the plaintiff. Suspicion had, in
the mean time, been excited th.t the witness had been im-
properly tampered with. It was found that, on the evening
before the trial. he had been in company with the de-
fendant's attorney, and some friends of his, and
that he had afterwards travelled home wills them.
An affidavit from the witness himself was now produced, in
which he stated, that the attorney for the defendant, ard
another party, had prevailed on him not to make his appearance
on the trial. They urged on him that he ought
not to give evidence against the defendant who had
been a former friend of his; and the defendant's attorney gave
the deponent a written security that he should be indemnified
for any inconvenience he might incur by absenting himself.
The security in question was produced, and was to the effect,
" that the attorney for the defendant undertook to indemnify
the witness for any damage he might sustain by reason of his
going away from Gloucester, as he was not a material witness."
The Learned Counsel having stated that he felt somewhat
at a loss to determine what was the particular nature of the
application which be should make under those circumstances,
some discussion took place upon the subject. It was finally
arranged that he should take a rule to show cause why the at-
torney should not be struck off the rolls.—Rule accordingly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. April 29.
IN RE WILLIAMS AND MOTTRAM.
The further consideration of this case came on to-day per.
scant to adjournment, and the Court was densely crowded
during the examination of the bankrupts.
Mr. Maynard attended for the assignees, and Mr. Wright
(the barrister) for the banks upts.
Mr. Charles Mottram was then sworn and examined. You
have put in your joint and separate balance sheets, and do you
now desire to pass upon them ?—Yes, I do ; but subject to such
explanations as the questions put to me may require.
You take credit for goods, French goods, which were lost,
to the amount of 615/. Were these goods paid for ?—I bad
nothing to do with the purchase of those goods, or the sale of
them. lam sure of the loss, and equally sure that the goods
were paid for.
Did you enter in any book your purchases?--I did not, but
a purchase book 4 as kept.
You put down 5,7521. as your profits ; bow do you account
for that ? From the profits in each department, arrived at in
the best manner we could, namely, looking to purchases and
sales in the whole concern. We cannot distinguish the par-
ticular pieces of goods upon which there was either a profit or r
loss though the result would be the same in the whole of ouf
dealing. I believe there was a loss (if we can get at it) o
nearly 16,0001.
Mr. Commissioner EVANS—How, then, do you take stock?
—lire did not take stock. Our whole profits were, as I have
before stated, 5,7521. 15s. 6d., and our lopes 10,0861., and
upon the whole of our trading nearly 400,000/. I believe my
statements to be correct, but Idid not keep the books, and pur-
chases might not have been entered, although they were plaid
for. I cannot tell whether the goods, for which the 615/. is
taken credit for as a loss, were entered in the purchase book or
not at the time they were lost.
Your private balance-sheet commences in January, 1840, and
ends Dec. 18, 1841. Do you mean that to represent the
whole state of your affairs within those respective periods ?—I
do so, and I mean to rely upon it.
Do you mean to say you bad no money on the 18th Dec.,
1841 ?—I mean to say that 1 have accounted for whatever I
had. I may have had some money for my wife, or for my own
expenses, or paid some to parties to whom I owed money.
Is it a true entry that 1971. was paid on the 3d Nov. for dra-
pery ?—The entry is not true, as appears by the cash-book ;
but let me explain. We have acknowledged, by Mr. Williams
and myself, that we had taken out sums from one date to
another, as specified by him. We each took down our private
debts, which we paid out of the moneys received by us in the
manner already stated; and I admit that the moneys received
from Messrs. Cowper, and Messrs. Martin, Abbot, and Co.,
were divided between Mr. Williams and myself in the gross,
for the purpose of paying our separate creditors, and pro-
viding something for our families. The cash-book shows (not
correctly, however) how it was drawn cut, not how the money
was received, but it does show that we had the amount as put.
down.
Was the money divided on the same day you received it.
from Cowper and Son ?—I cannot say.
Now, show me where that money so received was disbursed ?
—We put them in different items.
Mr. Commissioner Evaxs—ln fictitious items ; then that
account will not do. You must state your accounts correctly?
The bankrupt—l will, your Honour, as far as I can; but I
hope you will not ask me to do an utter impossibility. I will
swear most decidedly that when Cowper's money was divided
between us I was not aware, nor did I foresee, that we must
step payment.
So you foresaw it when you divided the money received
from Martin, Abbot, and Co. ?—Yes. I then thought we
must stop payment. That was on the 4th of November, I
believe, but lam not quite sure. I believe that Mottram and
Moore had goods from us after that day.
Was Mr. Turner at your house on the Sunday before you
stopped payment ?--I swear distinctly that he was not at my
house. Williams never suggested that we should stop the
French goods from coming over, but he was most anxious to
have them in, and said, when he received and sold them, that
he was sorry they were not for ten times the sun, and, as we
were obliged to stop payment, he added he was very sorry he
was in such a predicament in having se small a sum, and he
should have liked to have let that d—d Gore in for 10,0001.
and the Frenchman as much (this was on the evening of the
3d of November).
Does your joint balance-sheet show what bills, for which you
may be liable, were accommodation bills ?—I believe so, for
9,4391. for overdrawn aeceunts.
You made a great many payments for salaries about that
time to persons in your employ—now, I wish to know if these
sums were actually so paid?—Every one of them, and all at
the usual rate, except one, Mr. Withers.
Do you know anything of the salary book as mentioned by
Mr. Williams ?—Yes, I do, and I have it in Court. So much
for the false statement made at the last examination, that it was
burned by Mr. Jonas. Every one of my young men is pre-
pared to swear to what salary he has been paid.
The official assignee said the book now produced was not a
salary book, and Mr. Williams said it was not the book he re-
ferred to, for a part of it was now out. He was alto ready to
l wear that Jonas told him the book was burned.

)leasant altercation as
The bankrupts here entered into an uni
to the books ; and after some further quest 'ons,
Mr. Commissioner Eva r•ts said, I shall m ,t remark upon your
conduct (addressing himself to Mottram) ; but you must do al l
you can to satisfy your creditors. You must give a better ac-
count of the moneys you hare drawn out, at, d of their specific
application, and if you think you can be ready' with these ex.
planations by this day week, you can come bofore the Coutt
again. _ _

-The bankrupt's accountant, Mr. Banks, said ;be would pre-
pare the explanations as required by the Court ; and the case
in all its main features may be said to have terminated,

rNSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, April 28.

RE SAMUEL GILES.

The insolvent's petition to be discharged was opposed in ilk.
ground of vexatious defence to an action.

It appeared in evidence that he hadjOined a person named
George, who subsequently became bankrupt, in a bill of ex-
change, for whieh he (Giles) received no consideration what-
ever, and an action being brought for the recovery of its amount
against bo h parties, George defended it, wh'lst the insolvent
consented to a Judge's order being taken by the plaintiff to
some legal expenses, and tendered a portion of the amount of
the order.

The Co U itT deemed that there was nothing in the ease:calling
for a remand, and ordered the insolvent to be discharged forth-
with.

Several unopposed petitions were disposed of during the
morning, and the applicants disc-barged.

APRIL '29.
IN RE STEPHEN TURNER.

The insolvent's petition to be discharged was opposed in
person by a creditor, named Egan.
It appeared that he carried on business as a corn-dealer in
the Harrow-road, and about eighteen months ago bought a.
horse from the opposing creditor for 501. Some altercation
having arisen between them about the warrantry of the horse, the
insolvent refused to pay a balance (251.) remaining due of the
price, when au action was brought for its recovery, and a verdict
given for the plaintiff, and the insolvent soon afterwards taken
in execution.

The ground of opposition was, that the insolvent had taux
atinusly defended the action,
and thereby put the opposing
creditor to unnecessary expense.
After several witnesses had been examined in support of the
petition, the insolvent was ordered to be discharged forthwith.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANS.IO.N-HOUSE.
Robert Pearn, Captain of the sloop Charlotte Ann, front
'Rotterdam, appeared upon an information charging him, wader
the 48th section of the 3rd and 4th of William IV.,cap. 53,
with having had concealed on board that vessel a certain
quantity of tobacco and of spirits, called Geneva,. upon which
duty had not been paid. It appeared, from intelligence inci-
dentally communicated after the decision of the Magistrate,
that in the same vessel nearly 12,000 pounds weight of snuff had
been found, which was imported as provisions; but the latter
article is to be adjudicated upon by the Commissionera, and
that the sloop is under seizure.
Thg Lord Mayor and Alderman Thomas Wood presided.
TKe Solicitor for the Customs appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. Jlobler, jun., attended on the part of the defendant.
!avid S. Harding, Tide-surveyor to Her 111a,;esty.
stated that on the afternoon of the 26th inst. upon rummaging
the Charlotte: Ann, then lying at Brewers'-quay, he found
secreted in the master's state-room,' And in other parts of the
cabin, occupied by the master or captain, 141bs of manufac-
tured tobacco, two gallons and six thirty-two's of Geneva, and
other contraband articles, such as coil-be, tea, sugar-candy,
liquorice, manufactured tea-caddies, &c. &c. Part of title
tobacco was secreted between the Master's bad, and the vessel,
part was found upon the removal of the bulk,-head of the state
room behind a board, which witness was occupied ten minutes
in removing by force, so completely was it fastened with nails;
and other contraband articles were found in the bread-locker
under a false bottom. The captain was not on board when
Witness proceeded to rummage ; but upon appearing, be denied.
that. he knew anything of the articles at all.
Upon his cross-examination by Mr. Ilobler, jun., the witness
said the mate had access to all parts of the vessel in which the
concealment had. taken place ; but it was impossible that the
contraband goads could be there without the knowledge of the
captain.
.Mr. Ilobler, jun., endeavoured, by some ingenious observa-
tions, to get his client partly out of the difficulty.
Alderman Tnoaras Wool) said that all the circumstances
showed great design and effort at concealment, which cer-
tainly would not have occurred if the regular legitimate course.
had been adopted.
The Tide-surveyor said that the vessel had scarcely arrived
when lie went on board, and :nmmaged her.
• The LORD MAYOR—It is very well that these vessels are so
well watched, for to my knowledge an unusually heavy trade in
smuggling is carried on in them. He pronounced him guilty,.
and sentenced him to pay the penalty of 1001.
The mate was also convicted on a similar penalty, but the-
Bench‘recommended, that, as he probably acted under the in-
fluence of the captain, the Board of Customs would order hint
to be discharged.