The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-03 00:00:00

fully transfer ; and when a party did an act which
might. be lawful, a Court of Justice would presume
that it was so until the tiontfary lead been If•hown,
lie thought, therefore, the 225 shares standing in
the name of the bankrupt at the time of his bank-
ruptcy were not, nor were any of them, in the order
and disposition of the bankrupt, and so far as the case
rested upon that point, the plaintiffs would have a
priority tin 10. Wright, in Pespeet or the 160 sbares.
The next point to be considered was, that which
rested upon the relationship in which it was said Mr.
Wright stood-to each of his other partners. It was
said that Mr. Wright, as a proprietor of shares in the
bank, was a mere partner with the other proprietors,
and that by the general rules of law relating to the
rights of partners, inter se, the plaintiffs could only
claim subject to his relations with his other partners.
This argument he had little hesitation in rejecting.
In the case of an ordinary partnership, a partner
could only retife and withdraw his capital upon a dis-
solution of partnership; but there was an essential
distinction between that case and the present, arising
out of the peculiar provisions of the deed of settle-
ment of the Provincial Bank. His Honour then re-
ferred at length to several sections of the deed. He
could not read these provisions; and compare them
with the general scope of the statutes under which
the Company was bound, without saying that the in-
tention of the deed was to assimilate the Company
to the East India Company and the Bank of England,
who, as between themselves and the Corporation,
whose stock they held, might transfer their stock
without being subject to have their right of transfer
controlled or affected, After referring to cases, and
remarking further upon the case, his Honour declared
that the plaintiffs, as between themselves. and the
bank, and also as between themselves and the assig-
nees, were entitled to 160 original shares, and 32 ad-
ditional shares, and the dividends on both ; this to be -
without prejudice to the claim of Blunt, and to the
claim of the; bank and the assignees, by reason of
such interest, if any, as Bunyan had in the shares
standing in Mr. Wright's name, and by reason of the
transaction with Mr. Muspratt. As to the case of
Blunt, Bunyan, and Muspratt,.there must be inquiries.
The case was ordered to be mentioned this day week.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Parley.)
TRACY V. TAYLOR.-JUDGMENT.

Lord DENMAN said that this was a special case
which had been agreed on for the purpose of obtaining
the judgment of the Court as to the liability of that
part of Tothill-fields' Bridewell, which was occupied as,
the residence of the Governor to the sewers'-rate. The
Commissioners of Sewers had rated Mr. Tracey, the
Governor of the Bridewell, for that portion of the
Bridewell occupied by the prisoners, and had dis-
trained a table and other articles of furniture, where-
upon the plaintiff had brought his action. The Court
was clearly of opinion that the Commissioners of
SeWers had no right to rate any but the occupiers of
premises to the seArs'-rate. In the present instance Mr.
Tracey could not be considered as having;a beneficial
occupation of that part of the Bridewell which was
used for the purpose of detaining prisoners; indeed,
there was no person who could be called the occupier,
and, therefore, that portion of the Bridewell, as long
as it should be occupied as it was at present, could
not be rated to the Sewers'-rate.

JUDGMENT..-NEATII V. WRATIIIEN.

This was a special case, agreed on under circum-
stances similar to those of the former case, for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the wards and chapel
of Chelsea Hospital were liable to be rated to the
sowers% rate. _ _

The COURT decided that they were not liable to be
rated, and for the same reason, namely, that there was
no one who could be said to be the beneficial occupier
of the premises.

IAZELDINE v. GROVE.

This was an action brought against Mr. Grove the
Police Magistrate for false imprisonment. The case
was argued a short time since, on which occasion all
the facts were fully reported in The Sun. At that trial
the plaintiff had been non-suited, because he had not
given notice of his intention to bring the action within
three months, and had not laid the venue in Middlesex,
as required by the New Metropolitan Police Act.
A rule nisi for a new trial had been granted on the
ground that the defendant was not entitled to the no-
tice, inasmuch as he was not acting under the provi-
sions of that Act at the time.
The COURT decided that a Magistrate appointed
under the Metropolitan Police Act must always be
considered as acting under the provisions of the Act ;
that, consequently, the nonsuit was right, and the rule
must be discharged.

INSOLVENT COURT - T HIS DAY.)
The Court sat to hear applications for bail, all of
which were received save one.
IN RE HENRY HALES, THE YOUNGER.

The insolvent, who had carried on a very extensive
business as a coach-maker in Saville-row, applied to
be liberated on bail until the day appointed for his
final hearing.
Mr. WOODROTTE, on the part of the creditors, opposed
the application, on the ground that the insolvent had
been guilty of fraud and undue preference, whereby
he was debarred the privilege of bail.
Itappeared that his father had advanced him various
sums of money, amounting to nearly 4,0001., for the
purpose of enabling him to, enter into partnership
with a person named Hiffernam, and in security
got a warrant of attorney upon the joint goods of both
parties. The warrant was put in force in 1841, and
although all the goods were sold by auction, Mr.
Hales, senior, was minus nearly 800/. of the money
he advanced.
_ .

Mr. Commissioner HARRIS said, under all the eir-.
cumstances of the case, he did not think he should be
acting right in keeping the insolvent in prison. The
case would be fully sifted at the hearing, until which
time he should order his liberation.

Bail was then allowed to justify in the sum of 2,0001.

IN RE WILLIAM HASLAR.

A person, named Pearson, offered himself as bail for
this insolvent, and having sworn that his household
furniture was worth 1501., was examined by Mr.
Cooke, who appeared in opposition, amidst roars of
laughter. After reciting a catalogue of various arti-
cles, from a four-posted bedstead down to a flat iron,
and giving a valuation to each, he was unable to make
up more than 251.
Mr. Commissioner Ihnius reproved this person's
carelessness in swearing to such a statement in his
affidavit, and ordered the insolvent to be sent back to
prison.

COURT-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT

Frances Rugg, widow, Henry Rugg, a baker, George
Nathaniel Stephens, a tailor, James .11(viand, alias
Leeson, alias Christopher Jaines Rugg, porter, and
Thomas Morris, shoemaker, were indicted for felo-
niously forging a receipt for 401., with intent to de-
fraud William Russell, Esq.,. the Accountant-General
of the Court of Chancery ; Morris being an accessory
before the fact to the said felony.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Adolphus, and Mr.
Waddington, appeared for the prosecution • the pri-
soners were defended by Mr. Payne, and Mr.Ballantine.
The case was stated at length in the examinations
before the Magistrate. The money concerned was
a sum not exceeding 1201., left to the widow, Frances
Rugg, in her maiden name, and the forgery consisted
in the parties having introduced a third individual as
another brother, with the view of drawing out three
shares, the money having been for some time in Chan-
cery.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having stated the case,
the following witnesses were called
William Hughes, clerk in the office of the Master
in Chancery, proved that the Master made his report
on the 16th of March, directing a sale of stock. He
produced the order under which the sale was made.

- Mr. George Kitson, chief clerk in one of the divi-
slons in the office of the Accountant •General of the
Court of Chancery, stated that the division from
to Z. was under his control. He produced the re-
eipt book of the 3d of April, 1841. He remembered
the prisoners signing the receipt on that day. In con-
sequence of their signing he gave a cheque for 401.
Mr. Samuel George Smyth, a clerk in the Bank
of England, proved the payment of the cheque by the
order of the Master in Chancery.

George Birch, a master wine porter in the Lon-
don Docks—Knew the prisoner Leeson. Had known
him for five years, during which he had worked at the
Docks. Had never known him by any other name
than Leeson.
Farther evidence was then taken of the identity of
the prisoner Leeson.