The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-09 00:00:00

made, and that he should verify such statements by i INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 8. I
affidavit before the Lord Mayor, and that if there I UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND FUND.—In a case where
should be any fraud in such statement then the i an insolvent's petition was filed through the agency
assured should forfeit all the benefit to be derived 1 of this charity, Mr. Commissioner Harris said he
from the policy. The defendant pleaded, first, that I would make a general order, that the attorney appear-
there was a fraud in such statement of demand, and ling for such insolvents should receive no money from
a fraud in the affidavit made by plaintiff before the I the fund until after the hearing. In the present in-
Lord Mayor. Subsequently two other pleas had been stance the insolvent's conduct had been such as to in-
added—first, that the fire had been occasioned by the
I duce the Court to refuse no less than three applica-
wilful procurement of the plaintiff; and, secondly, tions for bail on his behalf, and yet, after getting an
that the fire had been occasioned by the wilful act advance from the charity, with which the detaining
and connivance of the plaintiff. The case was tried creditor was paid, the insolvent was discharged, thus
before Lord Abinger at the last Surrey Assizes, and prejudicing the interests of the more worthy appli-
thelJury found a verdict for the defendant on the plea cants.
of fraud.
Mr. Sergeant SIIEA, on the part of the plaintiff,
now moved for a rule to show cause why the ver-
dict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted,
partly on the ground of misdirection by the
Learned Judge, and partly on affidavit. From
the state of the pleadings, their Lordships
would perceive that as the burden of proof lay
upon the defendant, it was for him to begin.
Accordingly the Counsel for the defendant opened his
case, and undertook to prove the pleas. The case for
the defendant occupied the whole of the first day of
trial, and almost the last witness called was Mr.
Abbott, the surveyor to the Company, who stated
that a few days after the fire the plaintiff had called
upon him, and he had questioned plaintiff as to
the items which he had returned as having
been destroyed in the machine-room to the
value of 1401.—that he had questioned him as to the
value of each particular item, asking him, item by
item, and among them he (Mr. Sergeant Shea)
wished particularly to draw their Lordship's at-
tention to one item, mentioned by Mr. Abbott in
his evidence, as a great deal turned on that item—it
was, press boards, 51.65. The value of the articles
thus enumerated by Mr. Abbott amounted to 501. only,
instead of 1401., and Mr. Abbott stated that, in reply
to his questions, plaintiff said that he, plaintiff,
wished to do the best he could for his creditors ;
and, in fact, it appeared that he had made an assign-
ment of the whole of his property, including this
policy, for the benefit of his creditors. Such was the
state of affairs at the conclusion of the first day. He
(Mr. Sergeant Shea) had an affidavit from plaintiff's
attorney, stating the occurrences on the morrow.
The plaintiff's Counsel opened his case, and was pro-
ceeding with his address to the Jury, when he was
interrupted by Lord Abinger in these words—" Do
you mean to contend that Mr. Abbott is perjured,
because, if you do not I shall direct the Jury to find
for the defendant,:on the plea of fraud." The Counsel
for the plaintiff replied that the evidence of Mr. Ab-
bott was capable of explanation, on which Lord
Abinger put it to the Jury if they believed Mr. Ab-
bott. The Jury expressed a desire that the case
should proceed, on which Lord Abinger said to them
" The question you have to decide is if you believe Mr.
Abbott or not." The Jury expressed a desire to re-
tire, when one of them asked if the only question they
had to try was, whether they believed Mr. Abbott or
not, to which Lord Abinger replied, " That is the
only question you have to try ; if you believe Mr. Ab-
bott you must find for the defendant on the plea of
fraud."
Lord DENMAN—Were you present at the trial,
brother Shea.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA—No, my Lord. I was not.
A learned friend of mine conducted the case for the
plaintiff, and he did not think it right to move
this rule. I have satisfied myself as to what
took place, and having been requested to move on
this affidavit, I conceive I have no option but to move
the rule.
Lord DENMAN—If you move on affidavit, your
affidavit should state everything. It should not only
state all that the deponent saw and witnessed, but it
should also state that application had been made to
the Learned Counsel engaged in the cause, and that
he had refused to act.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA—That is the fact, my Lord.
Lord DENMAN—If you will undertake that the at-
torney in the case will make an affidavit to that effect,
you may go on, but for the future affidavits of this
nature must be perfect in the first instance.
Mr. Sergeant SIIEA undertook that such an affida-
vit should be made. The result of this interference
on the part of the Judge was the plaintiff's cause had
never been heard at all, and that his charac-
ter had been blasted, and his creditors had been
deprived of the property without his being heard
in his defence. He (Mr. Sergeant Shea) submitted
that the question put by Lord Abinger to the Jury,
was not the question in the cause at all. In acase which
had been stopped in this manner, of course he could not
refer to the evidence, but he had an affidavit of merits.
He had an affidavit from the plaintiff, stating that all
the pleas were false and untrue, and setting forth
that if the cause had been allowed to go on, it must have
been proved to be the mistake of Mr. Abbott. The
plaintiff stated that Mr. Abbott had asked him ques-
tions as to the value of various items, and among
other questons had asked him the value of the boards,
to which he had replied 51. 10s., but that Mr. Abbott
had never asked him about three presses which
constituted one item of the demand, and which
.were of the value of 901., which, together
with the 50/. admitted by Mr. Abbott, made
up the amount 1401., which was the amount claimed.
The plaintiff further stated that the remains of these
presses were still visible, and were capable of being
valued. He submitted, therefore, that he was en-
titled to a rule, inasmuch as the plaintiff's cause had
never been tried at all.
Lord DENMAN—We will see the Learnd Judge on
the subject. We are in doubt as to whether any
affidavit is necessary, whether you ought not to have
credit ex relatione. You have heard from the Learned
Counsel that all that the affidavits state took place.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA—The Learned Counsel has
told me all that passed, not perhaps in the same
words as the affidavits, but he has satisfied me as to
what occurred ; and I am also bound to state that my
Learned Friend has also satisfied me as to the pro-
priety of his not making the motion as a matter per-
sonal to himself.
Lord DENMAN—We will take a day to consider
what the practice ought to be, if it should be all affi-
davit, or all matter of relation from the bar.—Judg-
ment postponed.

IN RE HENRY THOMAS HUISH.

The insolvent had carried on extensive business as
a cab. owner and job-master. At a previous period
he had also been a butcher in Newgate-market.
Mr. WOODRUFF]: opposed his discharge on the
ground of fraudulently and vexatiously defending an
action brought by the detaining creditor ; also for
having made away with a quantity of property, and
sold a certain reversionary interest to which he was
entitled, to the detriment of his creditors.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS said he should order the
insolvent to be remanded for six months from the date
of his vesting order, for unnecessarily defending the
action ; and as there was considerable suspicion about
the case, an assignee was appointed to watch it closely.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.
Lee, the mock wine-merchant, who has undergone
several examinations on charges of having defrauded
tradesmen of goods, was yesterday brought up for
final examination.
The solicitor for the prosecution stated that he con-
sidered there was sufficient matter in the evidence of
Mr. Leach, the clerk to Messrs. Taddy and Co.,
tobacconists, to prove that the prisoner had obtained
the goods under false pretences. The prisoner, with-
out having any license for the sale of wines, applied
to the prosecutors in the character of a wine-mer-
chant, and gave in his card, which represented him
and a Mr. Gould as wine-merchants at No. 14,
Cooper's-row, Austinfriars, a neighbourhood in
which men of eminence in the wine trade resided.
Now the prisoner was anything but the character he
represented himself to be, and Mr. Leach would not
have allowed the tobacco to be taken to the premises
of the prisoner if he had not believed him to be a
wine-merchant, which he certainly was not.
Lee said he had dealt in nothing but wine for the
last seven years, and the solicitor for the prosecutor
happened to be a customer himself to one of the
persons with whom he (the prisoner) had had
dealings in wine.
The solicitor to the prosecutor—Who is that ? Lee
—Mr. Hennekey.
The solicitor for the prosecution—As you have
mentioned that name, I shall tell you what Mr.
He,unekey told me. He declared that you swindled
him to the value of 401.—(A laugh.)
Lee—That was all owing to a bad debt, and as for
Mr. Taddy, I assure you, my Lord, he never asked
me for the money at all.—(Laughter.)
The prisoner was then committed for trial for hav-
ing obtained goods from Messrs. Taddy and Co.
under false pretences.
A lady, who put no signature to her communication
to the Lord Mayor, inclosed a 101. note to his Lord-
ship for the service of the poor.
his LORDSHIP said the season was approaching
when contributions of the kind would be most neces-
sary to meet the pressing demands at the Justice-
room. He hoped that his successor would find, at
the commencement of the new Mayoralty, that the
female friends of humanity would rally round him,
and that the new Lord Mayor would be enabled to do
more good for the poor by the assistance of the bene-
volent, than any of his predecessors.
A man of respectable appearance, named Peter
Adamson, appeared before Alderman Gibbs, on Mon-
day evening, at a late hour, charged with having ob-
tained the sum of 2001., under false pretences, from a
young Scotchman named John Heron. The pretence
was understood to be, that the complainant should be
a partner in a commercial agency at Port Phillip. Mr.
Clarkson attended as counsel, and Mr. Bozon as soli-
citor for the prosecution.
Mr. Clarkson stated that Mr. Heron resided at
No. 1, Bridge-road, Lambeth, and had lately received
4001., which had been bequeathed to him. He was of
age in June, and he had a cousin who was employed
in an Australian house, whom he sometimes visited.
He met there the prisoner, about the 24th or 25th of
July, and held some conversation with him about
Texas, to which place Mr. Heron intended to go, for
the purpose of advancing his condition. The prisoner
declared that he was going to Melbourne and Port
Philip, that he had been an emigration agent, and
that he had letters to secure his appointment to a colo-
nial agency, from Sir James Graham and Lord Stan-
ley, so that there was no doubt whatever as to the
profitable nature of the transactions in which he was
concerned. The prisoner further stated that it would
be folly on the part of the prosecutor to set off for
Texas, when there was such an opportunity to go with
singular chances of a prosperous result to a place so
much superior, and added that he had been kept
dallying about a partnership with a gentle-
man for some time, and if the negotiation were
not completed within a very short period, it
should be wholly terminated. The prosecutor
finally was induced by the representations of the pri-
soner, of the correctness of which he entertained no
doubt, to accompany him to Port Philip. The pri-
soner had in the course of their communications toge-
ther told him not to mention anything about their
plans to his cousin or friends, and thus the prosecutor
had nobody to direct his inexperience or secure him
by advice against the inducements held out to him to
part with his money. The consequence was that Mr.
Heron was prevailed upon to sign a deed of partner-
ship and to give to the prisoner the sum of 2001. It
was in vain he requested to be allowed to consult his
friends in Scotland. The prisoner declared that con-
siderable loss had already been sustained in consign-
ments in consequence of the delay made by the gen-
tleman who was to have been his partner, and no fur-
ther procrastination could take place. The prosecutor
found after he parted with his money, that Mr. Adam-
son was not so anxious to see him, or to depart for the
place in which they were to reap such advantage.
Disappointment after disappointment took place, and
at length the prosecutor determined to try the effect of
an appeal to the Lord Mayor.
Mr. Heron made a statement to the effect of Mr.
Clarkson's address. He said the prisoner had the
deed of partnership executed by an attorney, no pro-
fessional man having been present on his (witness's)
account. The prisoner was to have seen him two
days after the payment of the money, for the purpose
of coming to an explanation on every point, but did
not keep the appointment, and witness did not see the
prisoner until ten days afterwards, although they
were to meet every two days, and the prisoner was
to have brought the letters in testimony of the fidelity
of his statements, It was, however, evident, that no.
thing honourable was intended by Mr. Adamson, al-
though he said he was a most honourable man ; and
witness declared to him that he was desirous to have
his 2001. returned, in order that he might prepare to
go to Texas. The observation which the prisonermade
upon being thus applied to was, that he should hold
the witness as a partner, but that he would consent
to let him have his note of hand, or bill for 1001., at
six months' date.
Upon the part of the prisoner, it was stated that
the prosecutor and Mr. Adamson were partners, and
a deed of partnership was produced, with the signa-
ture of both parties attached.
Alderman Giuns asked the prosecator whether he
prosecutor
se parted
stoeonc teuhit. eow rpa
srsaidis
ot withh
nehne
he certainly
ri
hes
ma
damoneyremanded.
dote d.
beenwif
Alderman
made.dl ede
rdeclarationsmnoat.n
G
would
t The have
at the same time stated that he would take bail for the
prisoner's appearance.
BOW-STREET.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 8.
SMITH V. LORD DYSART.

Mr.BARsTow moved fir a distringas in this case to
compel the defendant to appear. It appeared from
the affidavit that a person went to Lord Dysart's resi-
dence, and after having appointed a day to see Lord
Dysart to serve the writ, he called on the day ap-
pointed, but was told that Lord Dysart had left in the
morning. It also stated that Lord Dysart's solicitor
said he would not appear.—Application granted.

BOSANQUET AND OTHERS V. GRAHAM.
Mr. OGLE moved for a rule to show cause why the
judgment signed against the defendant, as a public
officer of the Southern District Banking Company,
and all subsequent proceedings, should not be set
aside for irregularity. The motion was precisely
similar to one made yesterday by Mr. Thesiger, the
scire facias being merely against another party.
Application granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 8.
HELL V. ANDERSON.

This was an action for demurrage, tried before
Lord Abinger at the last assizes in London, when a
verdict was returned for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff was the master of a
vessel called the Union, and the defendant had en-
tered into an agreement with shim for the transport of
a cargo of coals from the north of England to the
port of London. Five days were to be allowed for
clearing the vessel, and for any additional time she
might be detained the plaintiff was to be allowed
2/. per day demurrage. The vessel arrived on the
10th of March at Greenwich, where she was detained
until the 21st, when she came up to London, she hav-
ing been entered in the meter's list at Greenwich ;
but the meter not having come on board until that
day. The plaintiff claimed demurrage for the days
the vessel was thus detained. A verdict, however,
was entered for the defendant, on the ground that she
had not arrived at the port of London according to
the terms of the agreement until after she had left
Greenwich.
Mr. ERLE now moved for a rule to show cause why
this verdict should not be set aside, or a new trial
granted, on the ground that the defendant was answer-
able for the delay of the vessel in arriving at the port
of London.—The Court refused the rule.

Mr. Bond, the newly-appointed kagigustraete-
ensinqutahree
room of D. W. Gregorie, Esq., of
police-office, sat with Jr. Jardine at this office this
morning.
Two little boys named Stanfield and Jones, about
8 years of age, were convicted of stealing fruit in
Covent-garden market, and sentenced to six days' im-
prisonment each. Mr. Jardine said he was deter-
mined to put a stop to these petty depredations, as
complaints were hourly made by the market people.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Robert Hutton, a young man, shabbily dressed, and
who looked as if he was famishing, was charged with
committing the following daring robbery :
Wm. Southwood, shopman to Mr. John Saunders,
of No. 54, Regent-circus, tailor, stated that about
half-past five o'clock last evening as he was standing
by himself in his employer's shop, the prisoner, whom
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 8. he had for some time observed looking in at the win-
IN RE WILLIAM lIENRY BALL. dow, suddenly threw open the shop-door, and rushing
The bankrupt was described as a coach proprietor forward for between two and three yards snatched
at Kennington-cross, but was better known as the down a great coat from off a peg on which it was hang-
owner of the omnibuses plying between Clapham, ing, and darted out of the shop with it. Witness pursued
Kennington, and the City. The amount of debts, as him calling " Stop thief," and in Sherrard-street,
stated in his schedule, was 4,500/-, and the assets Golden-square, he was stopped by the police with
available to the estate only 231. 10s., and even that the stolen property in his possession. The coat was
sum was described under the head of " good debts." valued at three guineas.
This day being appointed for the final examination, ' Mr. MALTBY (to the prisoner)—Do you wish to
the Court was crowded with creditors ; and afar a say anything in your defence ? Prisoner—No: I
very lengthened examination of the bankrupt; ; admit having committed the robbery as the witnesses
Mr. Commissioner PANE said, when, as in the pre- have described, but I was forced to do it by hunger.
sent instance, the. balance-sheet presented such a large I have been in a state of destitution for many days,
amount of debts, and only 231. Ns.. available to the and God knows that it is the truth, that from Satur-
creditors, he could not allow the bankrupt to pass his day morning last, until this morning at the station-
final examination except the accounts were most sa-. house, when one of the constables, out of compassion,
tisfactory and explicit to the whole body of the are- gave me a penny loaf, I had not tasted food of any
ditors. He should, therefore, adjourn the examination sort. I have applied to the parish, but they would
Ailless the bank- ' not assist me, and starvation at last made me reckless
for a month and, in the meantime,
rupt rendered to the official assignee all 'the required of what might become of me. •
information, he should order the case to be adjourned i He was then fully committed.
sine die. 1 A respectable looking, tall, middle aged man, who