The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-14 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 13.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at the Guildhall, in the City
of London, before Lord DENMAN and a London
Common Jury.)
RICHES V. TWENTYMAN.

The plaintiff in this case is a builder, and the de-
fendant a gentleman residing in Avenue-road, Re-
gent's-park. The action was brought to recover
401. Bs. 6d., alleged to be due from defendant, for
preparing estimates for the building of a house.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Humfrey conducted the case
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Thomas
for the defendant.

It was admitted that Riches had prepared the
estimate ; hut, on the part of the defendaßt, it was
contended-that Riches was given distinctly to under-
stand that the estimate was to be prepared gratui-
tously, as the building was to be competed for, so as
to give defendant the opportunity of accepting which
contract he might think proper. This was denied by
plaintiff, who contended that he had been expressly
employed by Mr. Twentyman to prepare the estimate,
without any reference to any competition for the
contract. The work had been done in 1840, but no
demand had been made, nor had the present action
been brought, until May 1842.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 13.
SMITH V. GORDONS.-FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

The Court was occupied the whole of the morning
with this case, which in its general bearing is of an
unusual and somewhat important character. It was
conducted for the plaintiff by Mr. Sergeant Tal-
fourd ; and Sir T. Wilde appeared for the defendants.
It appeared that the plaintiff, in 1833, was captain
of an East India trader, the Frances Charlotte, and
in that year received. from the defendants a letter of
credit for 1001. upon their agent at Hobart Town, Van
Diemen's Land. On touching at that port, the credit
was duly honoured by the agent, Mr. M'Laughlin,
who on payment of the 1001. received from plaintiff a
bill of exchange drawn upon a merchant in London,
named Kane, his owner, on whose behalf the letter of
credit was given for the necessary disbursements of
the ship at Van Diemen's Land. This bill of ex-
change was to be remitted to Messrs. Gordon, and in
such cases it was the practice of Mr. M‘Laughlin to
have the bill drawn in three parts or duplicates, en-
dorsing each of them ; and to remit one by the first
ship, another by a second, and to retain the third.
On this occasion the first part was put on board the
ship Rifleman, which is supposed to have been lost on
the passage, not having been heard of since 1838.
The defendants having informed their agent in the
colony that the bill had not been received, he remitted
the second part, which, however, he had forgotten to
endorse ; but this did not reach England until 1835.
When the defendants sent the bill to the house of
Kane for acceptance he could not be met with ; and,
after considerable delay, the defendants took out a
writ against Captain Smith, and arrested him on
board his ship at Sheerness, in his cabin, at eight
o'clock of the morning on which his vessel was to sail
with convicts to Van Diemen's Land. Smith, who
was well known at Sheerness, where he possessed pro-
perty, paid the amount of the alleged debt and costs
into the hands of the Sheriff, and the case proceeded to
trial, when the defendants failed to establish their
claim as against him. The present action was ac-
cordingly brought for that arrest, as unfounded and
malicious, considerable stress being laid by the
plaintiff upon the fact, that the defendants postponed
the arrest until the morning when he was about to
sail ; whereas they could have arrested him any day
for months before in London, and the manner and
time of the arrest were calculated to have a very bad
effect upon his officers and the convicts under his
care upon the ensuing voyage.
The defence now was that the ground of action
against Captain Smith was real and bona fide, and
that the defendants had waited to the last moment in
the hopes of obtaining their money without harsh
measures.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that, although the
defendants had not made out their claim in the action
against the plaintiff; yet that did not show that they
had not such reasonable ground as would justify them
in the steps they had taken. But he thought that, as
the bill had not been duly presented or accepted, they
had not such reasonable ground; and it would, there•
fore, be for the Jury to consider whether they were
actuated by malicious motives, and what compensa-
tion the plaintiff was fairly entitled to.
The Jury then retired to consider their verdict, and,
after some deliberation, found for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, One Farthing.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. I 3 .
against ere
hhenni
26
IN RE WMTMORE, WELLS,w AND COMPANY.
The bankrupts in this case
rwell-knownoaggregateth
oe
fiat
bankers of Lombard-street,
issued in the month of July, 184 E '
amount of debts was stated to be about
out of which a dividend of 6s. in the pound had been
d, I
paid up to the last meeting. The assignees had
proved against the estate of Daventry, Re,
Co., of _Manchester, for the enormous sum 'of
220,0001., on behalf of the bankrupts, when the above
firm of Daventry and Co. became insolvent, but of
this sum only Is. 6d. in the pound would be available
for the estate. This day being appointed for de-
claring a further dividend, a sum of 2s. more in the
pound was announced, making in the whole Bs. in the
pound paid to the creditors.
Several affidavits of debts were tendered in Court,
which were informal, when
The LEARNED COMMISSIONER observed that he felt
strongly inclined to reject those proofs, because the
parties tendering them neglected to comply with the
rules as pointed out by the New Bankruptcy Amend-
ment Act. He wished it to be publicly understood
that in all cases henceforth he would require the
strictest compliance with those rules, and when such
was not the case he would undoubtedly prohibit the
admission of the proofs.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 13.
IN BE MOSES NATHAN.

The insolvent, who described himself as a general
merchant, was in custody upon a liability contracted
by gambling. Lewis Levi, the well-known sheriff's-
officer, who also is an extensive wine-merchant,
having been mixed up in this transaction, and not
being in Court to give evidence,
Mr. Commissioner lIARRIS said he would not allow
the insolvent's case
,to come on in the absence of so
important a witness as Levi. He (Mr. Commissioner
Harris) always sifted those gambling transactions to
the utmost, and he should therefore order the hearing.
to be adjourned for a month, the insolvent in the
meantime not to be, allowed out upon bail ; and care
being taken to have Levi and the detaining creditor
present on the next day of hearing.

IN RE GEORGE KNIGHT.
The insolvent was a surgeon and apothecary in
Drury-lane. At the last hearing the case was ad-
journed in order to perfect service, and he was
opposed in person by Mr. Shaw.
it appeared that he got a bill for 701. for the pur-
pose of entering upon business. The insolvent re-
peatedly told Mr. Shaw that he would give him up
the bill, until eventually it was found to have been put

into execution, and he (Mr. Shaw) was called upon to
pAy the amount.—Discharged.

IN RE JOHN HACREN.

In this case the insolvent was opposed by Mr. Wood-
ruffe, on behalf of Mr. William Peddington.
It appeared that the insolvent, who carried on an
extensive business as an architect and builder, had
engaged the opposing creditor to perfect a contract
which he (the insolvent) had entered into with a gen-
tleman connected with the Surveyor-General's office,
named Shilcocks. The chief grounds of opposition
were, that he had entered upon the contract at such
a low price, that it was impossible for a fair trades-
man to even pay for the materials, independent bf
labour.
Mr. Commissioner lIARms ordered the case to be
adjourned for a month, to amend the schedule, by in-
serting several creditors, and refused to enlarge the
insolvent's bail.

In the case of Nathan, previously reported, on the
application of Mr. Woodruffe, who read an affidavit,
stating that the insolvent's child was dangerously
ill, the Learned Commissioner consented to enlarge
his bail.

In the course of the day William Compton Smith,
John Burn 3, George Bennett, and Anna Maria Gully,
were discharged. No point of general interest was
elicited in the hearing of their petitions.