The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-10 00:00:00

SECONDARIES' COURT, Dec. 9.

BUGPITT V. MARCHAND.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the defendant for compensation in damages for the
seduction of his daughter.
The case did not go to the Jury, as the plaintiff
suffered a verdict to go against him. Damages 12.01.
None of the facts of the case were stated in Court.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 8.
THE BANKRUPTCY OF LORD HUNIINOTOWER.

At the close of the examination of Mr. Douglas in
this case, on the 7th inst., Mr. James proposed to
examine Lord Huntingtower as to certain bill trans-
actions in which he had been mixed up with Captain
Byng, as the Noble Lord, in a part of his former
examination, had made some statement which the
friends of the Captain considered to reflect unjustly
upon him.
Mr. Nias objected to such an examination, as not
being connected with the proceedings under this
fiat ; but
Mr. James persevered, and said that the evening
before he had received a note from Lord Strafford,
requesting him to put some questions to his Lordship
in respect of his bill transactions with Captain Byng.
Lord Huntingtower expressed his ready anxiety to
answer any question which might be put to him, and
stated that he had had bill transactions with Captain
Byng to a very large amount, and when he formerly
stated that the Captain had given him no proceeds of
certain bills which passed between them, it arose from
the circumstance that he (Lord Huntingtower) had
been sued upon them, and he thought that the Cap-
tain would not have parted with them, without re-
ceiving some consideration. He had, however, been
himself sued upon bills by which he received no con-
sideration, and he doubted not but that Captain Byng
might have been treated in a similar manner, and,
therefore, that he had not been guilty of the slightest
breach of trust in his dealings with him (Lord
Huntingtower)
Mr. Nias having heard this explanation, expressed
himself glad that it had been given, but added that it
should not be entered upon these proceedings, and not
reported with them.
3iir. James—We must take our chance for that.

The further hearing was then adjourned.
DECEMBER 9.

IN RE JOHN GOODERED-THE PICCADILLY SALOON

This day being appointed for the final examination
of the bankrupt, who was the proprietor of the above
notorious place of resort, the Court was crowded with
creditors of the estate, and others anxious to hear the
details of the case.

The bankrupt having been sworn, was examined at
great length concerning his connection with, and the
profits arising out of, the play and betting rooms at
Doncaster. He stated that he had been connected
with them for thirteen years, and the profits, after in-
cidental expenses, amounted to between 4001. and
5001. a-year. Some years they exceeded 7001. or 8001.
but latterly they had fallen off very much.
Mr. Commissioner FONIILANQUE—That is but little
to be wondered at, after the numerous exposures that
have latterly taken place in the Law Courts.
Goodered—l have had sometimes as many as thir-
teen Members of both Houses of Parliament there at
the same time.—(Loud laughter.)
The bankrupt having answered the usual questions,
and rendered his accounts, was declared entitled to
pass his examination.