The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-12 00:00:00

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. KINGSTON.

The ATTORNEY-GEN 11.1 L wished to maize .a short
motion in the above case. The late Act of Parliament,
which took from the Court of Exchequer its equitable
jurisdiction, was so worded as to admit of very consi
derable doubt with regard to its meaning and whether
it had, in fact, taken away the equity jurisdiction of the
Court in revenue causes.— The cause in which he now
moved was pending before the Court when the new Act
came into full operation. An information had been filed
against the defendant, to which he had demurred. When
the Act came. into operation the record and 'demurrer
were handed over to the officers of the Court of Chan
eery along with all other equity matters, and it had been
directed by the Lord Chancellor to be heard before
Vice-Chancellor Bruce. He (the Attorney-General)
had that morning applied to his I ordship to re-
store the record to the Court of Exchequer, and
his Lordship had no objection that it should
be considered by their Lordships. The real
question to be considered was, whether, by the new Act,
the equity jurisdiction of the Court in revenue matters
had been removed to the Court of Chancery.

Lord AnnicEn—l know nothing of the mutter. I was
not at all consulted on it ; and I considered it was in such
good hands that I did not interfere.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The language of the Act
was not very clear ; his motion was made in order to
raise the question, and he thought it could be much
more conveniently done in that Court than in the Court
of Chancery. His motion would be for a rule to show
cause why the cause should not be set down for argu-
ment in their Lordships' paper ; for he contended that
the. record had been given up to the Court of Chancery
by a mistake, and that it ought to be restored.
Lord ABINGER— The first decision upon such a case
ought to be made by the Lord Chancellor. Why should
we be called upon to decide it case in which we might
appear to be stretching our own jurisdiction. The Lord
Chancellor was perfectly competent to construe any Act
of Parliament ; he had experience in both Courts. They
would bow with deference to his decision, but they wert
at present of opinion that all their jurisdiction had ceased:
However, if the Lord Chancellor sent back the record,
they would deal with it.—Rule refused.

BAIL COURT, Jun.•ll.
Mr. Justice Williams did not take his seat on the
bench until nearly two o'clock. When his Lordship en-
tered the Court there was not a single Counsel present,
and the bar remained unoccupied fora considerable time.

DOE DEM. STURTT 27. 1310BDS.

Mr. BAasTow applied for a rule, calling upon the de-
fendant to show cause why the writ of execution should
not be executed notwithstanding a writ of error had been
taken out by the defendant, such writ of error having
been taken out was fur the purposes of delay. The
action, which was one of ejectment, involving the
possession of property to an immense amount,
had been tried at the sittings after Trinity Term, before
Lord Denman, and a verdict had been returned for
the plaintiff: The case had been set down for
trial before a special Jury, a tales had been prayed
and the trial had gone on. During the, course of last
term, Mr. Erle had applied for a rule for a new trial on
the ground that one of the Jury had not been sworn.
The Court had, howeVer, refused the rule.
The defendant had since taken out a writ
of error on the same ground. Now he
(Mr. Barstow) had affidavits from all persons concerned
for .Mr. Sturtt, and from the Officer of the Court,
distinctly affirming that all the Jury had been sworn.
and, besides, the defendant, even if that had not been the
case, was not in a condition to take advantage of the mis-
take. He had chosen to take his chance of a verdict, and had
as lately as October last treated that verdict as a legal
one, by indicting one of the witnesses for perjury. It was
evidently merely for the purposes of delay that the writ
of error had been obtained, and therefore he trusted his
Lordship would grant his application.—Rule nisi granted.
MANDAMUS—THE QUEEN V. THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL,
Mr. DUNDAS applied for a Mandamus to the Post-
Master-General directing him to deliver up to
W. Auld, Esq., all letters addressed to Andrew
Straton and Co., for the three weeks, to commence from
the Ist of June last. He made the application under the
Scotch Bankruptcy Act.
Mr. JuStice WitLiams—ls there any instance of a
similar aPplication, having been made ? Mr. Dundas—
I think not, my Lord.
Mr. Justice WILLIA.ms—You had better make it
before the full Court.
The Court rose at three o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 11.
Their Lordships came into Court soon after half-pas
one o'clock.

DE VESITX V. HILL.

This was an action upon a policy of insurance effected
upon a vessel from Bourdeaux to Mauritius and back.
The policy was conditioned to be interpreted according
to the French law, and the vessel having been lost on
her return, near the mouth of the Gironde, and within
forty miles of Bordeaux, the
,defendants refused to pay
on the ground of fraud. After a trial of three days' du-
ration, before the Lord Chief Justice and a speciil jury,
a verdict was found for the plaintiff on some ;pleas, and
for the defendant on others. A rule nisi having since
been obtained for a new trial,
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD now obtained, by consent, an
enlargement of the rule, on the ground that the parties
were likely to come to an arrangement for obtaining a
final settlement of the questions of law involved in the
case, these being of great importance to the commercial
interests of both countries, and several other policies of
insurance depending on the decision upon this.
- -

EDWARDS V. LORD GLENGALL.
This was an action upon certain bills of exchange,
Jrawn by the defendant. The cause was set down for
tr:al by special jury, in the sitting.; of last term.
In consequence of the non-performance of a peremptory
undertaking on the part of the plaintiff, in which the
trial was postponed, Mr. Sergeant Bompas obtained a
rule absolute for a nonsuit. But on the subsequent ap-
plication of Mr. Sergeant Talfourd (upon affidavits that
plaintiff had not been able to find out some necessary
witnesses and obtain the attendance of others from the
Continent), the rule for a nonsuit was withdrawn, and
a rule nisi given for the trial of the cause this term.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Jan. 10.
THE QUEEN V. THE LATE THEODORE HOOK.

The Court sat specially yesterday for the purpose of
executing a writ of extent which had been sued out at
the instance of the Crown, to inquire what proporty the
late Theodore Hook was possessed of and entitled to at
the time of his death.

Mr. Carpenter Rowe, the Barrister, attended on behal.
of the Crows

Mr. RowE stated that this was a case of a peculiar
nature, and he would state the facts as shortly as he
coidd to the Jury. They were probably aware that Mr.
Theodore Hook had been a man of considerable wealth,
and was celebrated in literature. In the year 1813 he
obtained an appointment under the Government in 'the
Mauritius, and continued to fill his office until 1818,
when it was found there was a certain deficiency in his
accounts, and he was found to be indebted to the Crown
in the sum of 12,5851. 14s. 6c1., and a Commission re-
turned Mr. Hook as a debtor to the _ Treasury in that.
amount. At the time that Mr.- Hook's defalcations
were discovered, the Crown issued an extent against him;
but in 1825, upon petition of himself and some-friends, it
was superseded. In the autumn of last year Mr.
Hook died, and therefore it now became necessary
to proceed again. The two main questions for the
Jury would be, first, when did Mr. Hook • die,
and, secondly, what property
was he entitled to, and
debts due to him, at the time of his death ? ' It would
be shown that he had a house of furniture at Fulham
when he died, and that a portion of it had been sold and
applied in payment of servants' wages, and of the fune-
ral expenses ; but the most valuable part had been sent
to Mr. George Robins to be submitted to the hammer.
The Crownrprcvious to the sale, made a formal seizure,
through Mr. Hemp, the Sheriff's officer ; but did not
interfere with the auction, as it was thought that any in-
terference might prevent the sale from going on so well.
Mr. Hook, it appeared, left a will behind him ; but did
not name any executors in it. However, Mr. Broderick
• had taken out letters of administration, and the produce
of the sale had been paid over to that gentleman, who
had converted the money into Exchequer bills. There
was no doubt, therefore, that the Crown would be entitled
to this money. About 1820 Mr. Hook became acquainted
with some gentlemen who were carrying on the John
Bull newspaper, a very valuable property,, and eventually
he became entitled to one-fourth share, and also a
quarter share of the type and other articles upon the
premises, and the leasehold where the publication was
carried on. He was, in addition, appointed Editor of the
John Bull, at a salary of 500/. per year. Here
their inquiry
might have ended ; but a Mr. Joel Ed-
v,-..irtls had sent in an accuunt between himself and Mr.
!look, in which he deaits withseveral flees cc-1.
eci-,•;.=d on hook's account frorn thict proprieiarS ..6;3 the
John Bull, and amongst others there is a sum of 2,0031.
It.would transpire that in 1831, Mr. Hook being in diffi-

culties, borrowed 3,0001. froth Mr. Joel Edwards, and the
immer entered into an agreement to as=sign his share
in the John Bull to the latter gentleman by way of
security, and further 'covenanted to insure his life for
2,0001. In 1834 Mr. Hook borrowed a further sum of
1,0001, and having failed to perform his covenant by in-
suring his life, Mr. Edwards did so for him to the amount
of 4,0001 in the Rock Insurance Office, and continued
to pay the premium from time to time out of a sum of
400/. per year which he received from the John Bull
,fee upon the order of Mr. Hook. Now he (Mr. Rowe)
contended that Mr. Edwards was acting in the character
of a trustee of Mr. Hobk, and that the Crown was,
therefore, entitled to that portion of Mr. Hook's property
at his. death. The Crown was . not desirous of acting
harshly towards Mr. Edwards, but it was understood that
Mr. Edwards had received 4,0001. in hard cash from the
Rock-office, and instead of applying it in paying off the
mortgage on Mr. Hook's interest in the Jahn Bull, he had
appropriated it, to the liquidation of some bill transac-
tions, which he alleged had likewise taken place between
them, and which were all of a subsequent date to the
mortgage. The Crown, as he had before said, was
anxious to do justice ; but if Mr. Edwards insisted upon
the course he had adopted, the Crown would take the
high ground of asserting its priority of claim, and the
mortgage deed would be thereby rendered as useless as
a piece of waste paper.
Several witnesses were examined, who spoke in corro-
boration of the circumstances mentioned above,and finally
Mr. Joel Edwards, of Hanover-street, Hanover-square,
gave an explanation of his conduct respecting the sum
in question, by deposing that he insured Mr. Hook's life
in the Rock-office for 4,0001., and had been in the habit
of receiving 4001. per year from the Jilin Bull office, by
Mr. [look's order, for some time past. He appropriated
the 4001 towards liquidating bilis from time to time,
which Mr. Hook gave him for money advanced. Wit-
ness had received the 4,000/. from the Rock-office. The
SUM of 2,000/. charged.in his balance' sheet to the credit
of Mr. Hook, was received from him at different times as
a portion of the 4,000/. Witness did not pay the whole
of the premiuM upon the insurance out of the 4001. re-
ceived from the Jilan Bul; but only the premium upon
2,000/., the amount Mr. Hook had covenanted to insure
ibr under the mortgage and assignment. The remainder
of the 400/. was carried to Mr. Hook's account, in liqui-
dation of the principal and interest due to witness. Mr.
Hook altogether owed him (Mr. Edwards) 8,0001. at the
time of his death, and in simple words, he had applied
the 4,0001. towards liquidating that amount. The witness
having undergone a lengthy examination,
Mr. HOPKINSON addressed the Court on behalf of Mr.
Edwards, and contended that he was justified in what
he had done, and after considerable discussion, the Jury
returned a verdict, setting forth the facts as they ap-
peared in evidence, and leaving the parties to contest the
matter hereafter in the Court of Exchequer.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 10.
IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE HINLEY.

This day was fixed for the adjourned examination of
the bankrupt, who was described as an " auctioneer, of
Surrey-street, Strand," but who was, in fact, a " loan
agent to a considerable extent; and the public must judge
for themselves as to the - sufferings of a variety,of all
ciases of creditors, who trusted in receiving an extra-
ordinary rate of interest, -when they now find that they
should have little or nothing to receive for their invest-
ments.

Two witnesses, of the names of Jervis and Dickenson,
were, it appeared, necessary to be summoned as wit-
nesses in this case, but the messenger in vain-sought to
Jiscover their place of residence, and the result was, al-
though extraordinary disclosures were expected of neces-
sity to come out, that the further hearing was adjourned
JANUARY 11.
IN RE NILES AND HADDON.

This day being appointed for the final examin.atioa of
the bankrupts, who carried on a very extensive business
as sugar-bakers and refiners, a number of creditors were
in attendance.

The bankrupt Miles was subjected.to-a long examina-
tion. The Commissioner .ordered the case to be further
adjourned, in order that the ,p-cial balance-sheet might
be amended, and soine further inquiries made concerning
the disposition-Of certain proper:y.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 11.
IN RE EDWARD WALBY SALOMONSON.
The insolvent in this case was a stock-jobber, and had
dealt very extensively in what is called " time bargains."
He had become a bankrupt in the year 1837, and his
present debts and liabilities amounted to 20,4871.
He was opposed by Mr. Nicholls, on behalf of Louis
Stichest, a German tailor, carrying on business in
Argyle-street, Regent-street. on the grounds of having
fraudulently contracted a debt of 701. without any rea-
sonable expectation of paying it.
The insolvent was remanded until he should prepare
a fresh balance sheet.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
ANSIOIV -HO USE.
Captain Fife, who is lathe employment of the Gene.-
ral Steam Navigation CoMpany, appeared upon a sum-
mons to answer,- touching a deficiency in four chests
of indigo, which were on: the 21st
~of December last
shipped in the Ocean steamer by Messrs. Schaezler and
Co. of London, and consigned to Messrs. L. Meyer, and
Co., Rotterdam.—Sir P. _LAURIE adjudicated.
The Bavarian Consul appeared, not against, but to
question the Captain of the • Ocean, and the case excited
a great deal of attention.
Upon the part of Messrs. Sehaezler, it was stated that
there had been shipped for Rotterdam, in the Ocean, four
chests of indigo, winch were weighed before and after
they were eased for shipping; in order to make all secure
against plunder, a wrapper, with nail's and other secu-
rities was placed upon each chest by the shipping agent,
Mr. Williams, who paid every attention to she subject.
A very considerable deficiency, however, took place in
the weight of the chests after their arrival at
Rotterdam. Now the complaint of deficient weight had
been made by a great number of merchants, and it was
in vain that they represented the matter to the officers
of the General Steam Navigation Company. They
therefore determined to introduce the subject at the
Mansion-house, in order to have it publicly investigated
and exposed.
Sir. P. LAURIE asked whether any suspicions were en-
tertained before the present case was brought to the
notice of the complainant.
The Bavarian Consul stated that several complaints
had been made respecting deficiencies in the weight of
indigo sent from England to Rotterdam. It was rather
singular, he observed, that when the merchants shipped
goods y the Batavier for Rotterdam, no deficiency
whatever took place. The complainants upon the pre-
sent occasion were amongst the largest shippers of in-
digo in London, and they of course felt strongly upon
the subject.
Sir P. LAURIE—This is a serious charge, but I do not
exactly know against whom it is. Is it against the Cap-
tain or against the General Steam Navigation Company?
The Bavarian Consul-1 cannot say that it is against
either. The complaint is made in order to arrive at the
merits of this case,. for the purpose of redressing a
serious evil. I accuse no party, uut it is iu vain we
have applied to the Directors of the Steam .Navigation
Company. We could get no explanation of the matter
from them.
Sir P. LAuark —You must prove to me the deficiency,
in order to enable me to act. -
The Bavarian Consul stated, that in the particular in-
stance of the charge before the Magistrate; a deficiency
of 61 pounds weight was ascertained in three clie.sts of
indigo which was calculated to be worth ss. a pound.
One of the partners in the house of Messrs. schaezler.
and Co. stated that it had, beyond a doubt, been ascer-•
tamed that the deficiency alluded to had taken pace.
Witness complained of the deficiency to the Directors of
the General Steam. Navigation -Company, and saw Mr.
Brocktebank the Chairman, who.saiu- that all the neces-
sary inquiries should be made.. • No information, how-
ever, had been collected, and witness stated that if those
who were interested in the matter were kept in the
dark, an application should be made to the Lord Mayor
for a summons, in order to have the atfair sifted. The
house subsequently received a letter from the General
Steam Navigation Company, stating, in fact, nothing.
Sir P. LAURIE—The letter must have said something.
What was it?—The witness said the letter stated that
Captain Fife declared that he had stowed the indigo
away under the cabin floor in such a manner that it was
impossible for any of the crew to get at it.
Mr. Pearce, the solicitor to the General Steam Naviga-
tion Company, observed that the very statement in the
letter, which was described by the witness as being no-
thing, appeared to him to be very important indeed, in-
asmuch as it showed that the chests were not plundered
on board the steamer.
The Bavarian Consul said it was known that when the
Ocean steamer arrived at Rotterdam the goods on board
were, without the supervision of any body, thrown into a
lighter, and left there until the consignee pleased to send
for them.
Mr. Pearce said the admission just .made showed that
whatever mischief was done was clone without the know-
ledge or responsibility of the Company. The question
before Sir Peter Laurie did not atfeCt the legal respon-
sibility of the partieS;and Captain .Fife *was present to
prove that the greatest care had been taken to protect
the property. He supposed there would be no objec-
tion to take the evidence of the Captain.
The Bavarian COnsul said there could not be the
slightest. There was, it should be distinctly understood,
no charge whatever against the Captain.
Captain Fife swore he. saw the indigo stowed away
in such a manner as to be completely secure.
Sir P. LAtinlE—Had any of the crew access to -the
chests ? Captain Fife—Certainly not ;it was quite im-
possible any one could have access to them. The hatches
were locked up from the moment they were shipped until
they arrived at Rotterdam.
Mr. Pearce said that quite enough had been stated
to prove that the Captain and the Company were dis-
charged from all criminal responsibility. tii hat had taken
place in the vessel was quite sufficient to show that they
were completely exonerated.
Sir PETER LAURIE said it appeared to him that all
that had taken place on board the vessel was unobjec-
tionable ; but in the lighter, which seemed to him to be a
floating warehouse, there might not be the same sort of
security. lie wished to know who employed the
lighter ?—The witness replied that the agents at Rot-
terdam employed the lighter.
Sir PETER LAURIE desired that some other case should
be brought before him.
Mr. Robert Lewis Surdot, -of St. Helen's-place, stated
that in the middle of November, he shipped some chesti
of indigo to Rotterdam, by the 'Columbine, another of
the steam-vessels belonging to the General Steam Navi..;
gation Company. On the arrival of the vessel at Rot-
terdam, one of the chests was 15 or 18 lbs weight defi-
cient. The chest had come from the St. Katherine Docks,
and Sir John ltal', when he heard of fle defi-
ciency; desired that cc brought 1346; and
t,.-,,L;a that if it appeared that` &ne meare'kid
been resorted to atthe docks to account for the deficiency,
he should wake good the deficiency and pay AU the ex-

pense.s. The chest was brought back accordingly and
examined, and it was found that the wrapper was cut
and the chest had been forced op n, al,d that the chest
had been sewed up with twine, which Sir John Hall
found was foreign twine. Whether the mischief had
been done in the steamer or at Rotterdam could not be
ascertained, but no such thing had taken place on board
the Batavier which was in the habit of unloading into a
warehouse,which was properly superintentLd. It
seemed, therefore, that the loss in the goods occurred on
board the lighter.
Mr. Kingsbury Jameson, said that he could state
cases of a similar kind.

Sir P. LAURIE said that Captain Fife was, in his opi-
nion, exonerated from all blame. He should like to
know who were the proprietors of the lighter ?
Mr. Pearce said the general Steam Navigation Com-
pany were quite ignorant of the ownership of the lighter
'The Company, he assured the Alderman, had made
every inquiry on the subject, and if merchants found
deficiencies occurring, they had their remedy.
Sir P. LAURIE—The Company certainly ought to
ascertain everything about this lighter.

Mr. Pearce-The frauds may rake place in the ware-
houses of the consignees. They certainly do not take
place on board of the steamer, as the statements made
here fully prove.

The P;a,;arian Com3lll said it would have been very
desirable if the General Steam Navigation Company
had made proper exertions on the subject, and not com-
pelled a proceeding of this description to be adopted by
the merchants of London.
Sir P. LAURIE thought the notice of those matters in
the public press would speedily remedy the evil.. The
authorities in Rotterdam would no doubt look into the
subject of complaint ; and the Company ought certainly
to have a lighter of their own at Rotterdam, in which
the property of the merchants would be properly se-
cured. He was glad, for the sake of the Company, that
the question had been brought forward, for the reports
were calculated to be highly injurious.
QUERA-SQUARE.

Benjamin Profit, a man of colour, was charged with
endangering the life of Christopher Siddons, a shoemaker.
Siddons and another shoemaker, and their wives,
were taking some refreshment at the bar of a public-
house in York-street, Westminster, on the preceding
evening; when the prisoner and a-nother-tiegro entered,
and commenced using very insulting and even disgust-
ing language to the women. Siddons interfered in their
behalf, and received in consequence a blow from the
sledge-hammer fist of the first prisoner, which felled him
like an ox. Siddons afterwards left the house, abcom-
panied by his wife and friends, but he was quickly fol-
lowed by the prisoner, who again struck him without
provocation. A scuffle then ensued, and ultimately
Siddons was thrown with great violence upon the pave-
ment, the back of his head striking the_curb in fading.
lie was taken up senseless. A certificate- from a sur-
geon stated that Siddons had received a very severe
concussion of the brain, and be was not in a fit state

to appear.
Mr. BUIIRELL ordered the prisoner to find securities,
himself in 801., and two persons 4CI each, to appear and
answer the charge a fortnight hence.
• The prisoner being incapable of procuring such bail,
was committed.