The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-25 00:00:00

COURT of EXCHEQUER, June 24.

TUE CORPORATION OF COVENTRY V. LYTHAM. AND OTHERS.
The arguments in this case, which we noticed yesterday,
were continued to-day. Mr. Richards was heard during the
morning for the defendants.

THE CORPORATION OF COVENTRY P. LYTHALL AND OTHERS.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rrplied on the part cf the plain-
tiffs ; and the Court intimated that they would defer their judg-
ment until Thursday next.

I~VSOLVEAT DEBTORS' COURT, June 24.
IN RE JOSEPH R. LOYD.

The in,olvent's petition to be discharged was opposed by Mr.
Woodrutle, on behalf of a small creditor, who obtained an order
against him in the Tower Hamlets Court ef Request. Mr.
Cooke supported the petition. The names of thirty-eight
creditors appeared in his schedule, the greater number of whom
were administration creditors.

It ap; eared, during a very tedious investigation' that the in-
solvent had carried on business in Chapel-street, Cripplegate,
and having failed in 1837 he applied to his landlord, Mr. Jack-
son, of Leaderihall-street, who agreed to become principal in
the business, and have the insolvent employed to superintend
it. In pursuance of this agreement it was carried on until
1841, when it was finally given up, the insolvent being in his
debt to a large amount at the time, in security for which a bill
of sale was given upon other property. On the 15th
of last March, the opposing creditor being about to
put in the execution against the insolvent's goods,
Sir. Jackson put his bill of sale in force, and thus deprived the
insolvent of any redress, because it was alleged that where no
goods or chattels were available in satisfaction of a decree from
the local Courts of the Tower Hamlets, the wording of the
enactment, entitled "An Act to amend and render more effec-
tual an Act passed in the 231 year of the reign of George the
Second, for the more speedy recovery of small debts in the
Tower Hamlets," was so loose, that there was no provision for
imprisoning the debtor.
A long discussion ensued between the Learned Counsel en
both siites, in which it was stated that there being no local gaol
in the district of the Tower Hamlets, and all the gaolers of the
n.e:r epolitan prisons refusing to detain a prisor.er on the war-
rant of the Commissioners, there was no redress for suitors in
these Courts unless the creditor was possessed of chattels.
The in olvent was eventually declared entitled to his dis-
charge.

BAIL COURT, June 22.
GREEN V. ELGIE AND TONLINE.
Mr. Thesiger, Mr. Cowley, and Mr. Currie, were for
the plaintiff ; the Attorney-General for Mr. Elgie ; and
M. Platt, Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Clark, for Mr. Tomline.
Ibis was an action of trespass, assault, and false im-
prisonment. Proceedings were taken by the plaintiff,
who was an attorney, living in Nottinghamshire, ag•ainst
the defendaut, Elgie, who was an attorney, rcsidwg iu

Worcester, before the Vice-Chancellor, and the Court
of Review, for the costs in which Green became
liable. An order for the payment of the costs was
made, which not being complied with, the plaintiff
was arrested for contempt, under a warrant from
the Court of Review, and lodged in the Fleet prison.
Here he ramained for some years, and, as it appeared in
evidence, was in a very destitute condition having
scarcely food or bedding. In the year 1838, a Air. Briggs
who had formerly known Mr. Green, visited the prison,
and finding him in a destitute condition, applied to Mr.
Trickett, a salesman in Covent Garden, who assisted
Mr. Green, and advanced 1001. in order that he might
be liberated. Mr. Briggs twice took the money to Mr.
Tomline, the London agent for Mr. Elgie, and between
whom and Mr. Green there would appear to be a per-
sonal enmity. Mr. Tomline would not take the money,
alleging that he should write to his principal, and that
he did not know the amount of costs, and so Mr. Green
continued in prison, till the 10th of February, 1841, when
he was liberated, in consequence of an application made
for that purpose, on the ground of an informality in the
warrant of committal, and which application was op-
posed by Mr. Tomline. The present action was, there-
fore, brought, to recover damages for the committal
under this warrant, which his Lordship held to be void.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL submitted, that there was
no evidence against Elgie, in which his Lordship having
concurred, the jury found in his favour.
Mr. PLATT having addressed the jury for Mr. Tom-
line, his Lordship summed up, when the jury brought
in a verdict against Mr. Tomline, to the amount of
1501., subject to an objection taken by Mr. Platt, as to
tiro warrant being void or not.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOIV-STREET.

After the night charges had been disposed of, a respect-
able looking man applied to Mr. Jardine for advice
under the following circumstances :—He stated that on
the 4th of this month he left a bill for 401. with the West-
minster Investment Joint Stock Loan Company and Bill
Discounting Society, at No. 7, Adam-street Adelphi, and
it was to have been discounted for him, and the cash
handed over by the 9th. The house, however, was now
closed, the Society had failed, and the applicant could not
get his bill. Applicant called on Thursday at the office, and
saw a man who was the only person on the premises, and
he told him that if he called this morning he should have
the bill. Re called this morning but did not get it, and
was told instead that no doubt the Directors would write
to him about it. Applicant said too, that unfortunately
he was a shareholder in the concern.

Mr. JARDINE said he was afraid he could give him no
assistance, as the value was beyond that in which Ile was
authorised to interfere. He was not aware of any re-
medy except by action at law.
Applicant—l suppose then, Sir, if I can't get my bill
I shall have to pay it when it bu.omes due.
Mr. JARDINE—I suppose so.
Applicant then left the Court.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

James .Holland and Matthias k'.oriarty, young hot-tem-
pered Irish tailors, were charged with the following robbery :
Mr. John Rae, of No. 5, Stafford-street, New Bond-street,
tailor, stated that the prisoner Holland had for some time past
been in his employ, and slept in a room adjoining the workshop,
the prisoner Moriarty was also employed by him, but did not
lodge in the house. The prisoner Holland's conduct was so
unsteady as to induce him ',the prosecutor) to warn him to quit
his lodgings, but on last Monday night it appears that at a
very late hour, Holland, by means of the key of the
street door, which he retained in his possession, gained access to
his (the prosecutor's) workshop, and carried off three coats he
had to make, one finished, and the remaining two only par-
tially completed. Neither of the prisoners came to their work
on the following day, and it was subsequently ascertained that
Mori-Arty sold the stolen property to a Jew in Petticoat-lane,
Whitechapcl, for 155., and that both the prisoners, during the
after prat of the day (Tuesday) indulged in a " spree" to
Greenwich.

The prisoners expressed their regret at having committed
the foolish act they had done, it was merely a '• spirt," and
they would work " night and day to make it. good."
The prosecutor said that it was most likely he should lose
altogether the future orders of his customers if such delays
from the faults of his servants, as in the present instance, were
allowed to occur.

Mr. MALTBY said there was a clear case of felony against
the prisoners, and upon conviction of which they no doubt
world ba transported, and therefore he should remand them
until Tuesday next, to allow lime for the prosecuting party to
bring forward the necessary witnesses.