The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-20 00:00:00

IN RE CHAMBERS.

His Hoiloun then proceeded to give judgment in this
case. The principal point was whether certain freehold
property, amongst which was the Opera House, and pos-
sessed before the bankruptcy by James Chambers, was
to be applied for the benefit of the joint creditors. The
Learned Commissioner quoted a variety of cases in sup-
port of his judgment, that the mode of dealing with
the property had been such as to show that it had been
treated as partnership propesty—the bankers books went
a considerable way to prove it. It was not inconsistent
to declare it joint property under the bankruptcy,
although in the House of Lords it had been decreed that
it belonged to. James Chambers—in that case it was a
question between Chambers and Walters, but now it
was a question as to the estate. He founded his opinion
on the principle that a trust might be created without
writing, but proved by subsequent writings or facts.
The property would therefore be applied for the joint
estate. _ _

The Solicitor to the assignees said, that ultimately
there would be a dividend of 15s. to 17s. in the pound.

SECONDARIES.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
MARSHALL V. STEVENS.

This was an action to recover compensation for damage
done to premises of which the defendant, who is a brick-
layer, was lessee.
The defendant allowed judgment to go by default.
It appeared that the defendant had been on the pre-
mises, which were situate in Church-street, Deptford,
for nearly seven years, and received notice to quit at
Midsummer last. On the premisis being viewed, it
appeared that•a wall had been knocked down, another
had given way en masse from the foundation, and was
leaning nine* inches out of the 'perpendicular, and the
corners of an outhouse had been carried away, together
with the gates, which had been forced off the hinges.
All this damage was attributed to the careless manner in
which the defendant's men had backed carts against the
wall. The damages were estimated at 301. The de-
fendant had taken a quantity of materials to make good
the repairs, but the plaintiff insisted upon pecuniary
compensation.
A witness was called whO deposed that the "leaning"
wall must be pulled down, and it would cost 101. to set it
to rights, 51. for the short wall, and 61 for putting up the
corners of the house.

A question arose as to an admission of the rent being
due ; the defendant's wife having, in the presence of her
husband, promised to send the mon,,y. This was held
to be good in law.
The jury consulted for a long time, and asked whether
they ought not to make an allowance for the decay of
the premises. The walls were old, so that slight violence
would cause the damage ; but one wall, at least, ought
net to be charged for, if it could lean like the Tower of
Pisa and not fall.—(Laughter.)
The SECONDARY said the amount was entirely at the
discretion of the jury on the evidence.
The jury consulted a considerable time, and then gave
a verdict for plaintiff, damages 101., rent 71.

CRIMJNAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURI:

(Befciro the Right Hon. the LORD MAYOR and Mr.

Justice WIGHTNAN.)

FORGERY.—Thomas Peat, aged 25, stated to he an
engineer and cab proprietor, who stood remanded from
last session, was placed at the bar on a charge of forgery.
Mr. Bodkin was for the prosecution ; Mr. Ballantine
for the prisoner.
Mr. BODKIN detailed the case. He would show by
competent witnesses that the prisoner had been a groom
in the service of Mr. Laitham, who had an account with
the banking house of Robarts and Company. He would
prove also that as early as the 16th of September, 1843,
a bill of exchange for the sum of 150/. had been pre-
sented to the house of Roberts and Co., purporting to
be drain? .13y a Mx. Smith, and accepted by Mr.
Laithaxif4pvas inclosed in a note,• and the bankers
having no suspicion, at once discounted it. On
the 9th of March, 1844, another bill for the
sum of 75/. was similarly presented, and also discounted,
the produce being paid to the person who presented it.
It would not be in the power of the prosecutor to pro-
duce these bills, because, before they came to maturity,
another bill of 3501. was discounted, the party receiving
it withdrawieg the two previous bills of 150/. and 751.
But on the 28th Septebber, 1844, another bill, being the
fourth of the series, was presented and discounted in a
similar unsuspicious manner, and he (Mr. Bodkin) should
show that the notes received on that occasion were
changed at the Bank of England for gold, and a false
nam9And address, in the handwriting of the prisoner,
phiced--6A4Them. He should also show that a note for
501.—one of those paid at the bank—had been paid to a
loan society by the prisoner. Having proved these facts,
he thought the evidence would be sufficiently conclusive
against the prisoner.
Mr. Abraham Roberts, banker, was first called. Mr.
Luitham,had been a customer of their's for many years.
On the 30th December a bill of exchange, purporting to
be accepted by that gentleman, was presented and by his
orders discounted. The bill was for 1501., and it was
inclosed in a note, signed Richard Laitham, 65, King's-
read, Bayswater.
Mr. George Henry Blackett, clerk at Messrs. Ro-
berts, had given instructions to cash the bill presented
on the 30th December, 1844.

Mr. Robert Morris, cashier, pal* the money, 150 L, in
December last in three notes, me No. 11,504, 1001.,
dated 9th October ; one No. 60,554 for 401., dated the
7th May, and one for 101., numbered 15,486, and dated
3d October.

Mr. Robertson, clerk in the issue department, Bank of
England, had changed the notes mentioned by the last
winless. They were paid in gold on the 30th December.
He could not identify the person who received the money.
Mr. M'Donald, manager of a loan society, in St. John-
street, Clerkenwell, had frequent transactions with the
prisoner, and was well acquainted with his handwriting.
The bill was in the handwriting of the prisoner, as was
also the names on the back of the notes.

Mr. Henry Pear, clerk to the last witness, corroborated
his emplo) er's evidence.
Mr. George Henry Blackett was recalled, and stated
that a bill for 1501. was discounted on the 16th Sept.,
1643, as also a bill for 75/. on the 9th March, 1844. The
latter bill was paid in five 101. notes, Nos. 23,929 to
23,933 inclusive, and dated 3d February, and four 51
notes, Nos. 44,239 to 44,342 inclusive, and dated the Ist
February.
Mr. M`Donald recalled and examined—ldentified the
letters in which these bills were inclosed, as the hand-
writing of the prisoner.
Mr. Pear was recalled to prove the same fact.
_ _

Martin Saddler Thornton, clerk in the Bank of Eng-
land, had given gold for a 501. note on the 30th Septem-
ber, 1843. The name on the back was Peat.

Richard. John Sykes,clerk in the issue department, had
changed three of the 101. notes, numbered 23,929, &c.
Other clerks in the Bank of England proved the ex-
change of others of the notes received from Messrs. lio-
harts, for gold.

.
Mr. Wllonald was again recalled, to prove the hand
writing on the back.

Thesame witnesses were examined to prove the dis •
counting of the 3501. bill on the 27th July, and the sig-
natures affixed to the notes, &c.
Mr. Richard Laitham—The prisoner was in his ser-
vice some ten years ago. He kept an account with
Messrs. Robarts at that time, as he did now, but he had
never given the prisoner any cheques upon his bankers.
He did draw upon them for his little expenses. (The
witness was handed the bills and letters.) He knew
nothing of them, and had given no authority to any one
to write such.

Mr. Joseph Smith, Gray'z Inn—Had been acquainted
with Mr. Laitham for many 3 ears. He was not the
drawer of the bills, and the handwriting was not his.
He had never drawn a bill upon thp.t gentleman in the
course of his existence.

John Forrester (the well-known officer)-11e, in com-
pany with his brother, had taken the prisoner into cus-
tody in Paddington. The addresses on the notes were
false.

D aniel Forrester said that when he took the prisoner
into custody, fur uttering three forged bills, he answered,
" How can they make out it's me ; ' and when he (For-
rester) said that his name appeared on some of the notes,
he replied, " That can't be." He was then taken into
custody. The bills were put into court.

This.' concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. BILLANTINE then addressed the jury for the de-
fence. He quite agreed with his Learned Friend who
opened the case, that this indictment was of the most
imp 3 rtant character, as it affected not only the prisoner
at the bar, but the interests of the general public. He
(Mr. Ballantine) would not, however, even if he could,
exert any ingenuity in the defence ; he would rely upon
the simple circumstances of the case ; and he could rely
also with, confidence upon a verdict of acquittal, as
soon as the proper bearings of the case should
have . been exhibited to the gentlemen, of the
jury. And first, he would advert to the two main
features into which the matter resolved itself—he
meant the handwriting on the bills and notes, and
the passing of the single 50Z note by the prisoner. His
Learned Friend had, however, adverted at great length