The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-07 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 5.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. TILDESLEY.
This was an information, filed by the Attorney •General,
against the plaintiff, for the non-payment of duty upon a quantity
of bricks. The case had been tried before Lord Abinger at the
sittings after the last term, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
The Attorney-General had since obtained a rule calling on the
plaintiff to show cause why a new trial should not be granted,
on the ground that the Learned Judge, in charging the Jury,
had used certain words which remained for their consideration
as part of the evidence.
111 r. LEF., •n the part of the plaintiff, now applied for a dis-
charge of the rule, on the ground that in informations filed by
the Crown, the Court never granted new trials, after a verdict
had been returned for the defendants.
The COURT, after hearing the argtutients on both side, stated
that they should consider their decision in the case.

NAY c.
CUMLEY V. COWEN.
This was an action brought against the defendant Isaac
Cowen for the payment of a bill of exchange for the sum of 101.,
drawn by him for two months. The defendant was a Jew,
and a dealer in small wares, residing in Saffron-hill; and the
plaintiff was the representative of a Loan Society, by whom the
money bad been advanced. The case was tried before the
Under-Sheriff, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
It appeared that on the trial the clerk of the Loan Society,
who had given out the money, stated at first that Lazarus
Cowen, a brother of the defendant, who was in Court at the time,
was the party to whom he had advanced it ; while another
witness stated that the defendant was the party on whom he
had served the writ. The fact was, it seemed that the two
brothers, who were very small men, bore a must ex-
traordinary resemblance to each other, and their very
appearance had created great amusement in Court.
In order further to mystify their adversaries, they
had exchanged clothes with each other; when, however,
both were placed together, the clerk corrected the evidence as
to identity lie had at first aiven, and it was clearly proved that
the defendant was the party to whom the money was advanced,
although attempts were made to show, first, that he could not
write at all, and next that the acceptance to the Bill was not
in his handwriting.
On a former day, Mr. LEE obtained a rule calling upon the
plaintiff to show cause why a new trial should not be had, on
the around that the evidence in the case was contradictory.
The COURT, however, after hearing Mr. Thomas, for the
plaintiff, enter into the details of the trial, discharged the rule.

BAIL COURT, Mail 5.
Mr. BVLES moved for a rule, calling on an attorney of the
Court to show cause why he should not be struck off the roll
for misconduct. He was employed by his client to recover
money from a person, and he told his client that he had received
only a portion of the money, whereas he had received the
whole amount, and had given a receipt for it. He also re-
ceived money from another person, and represented, at first,
that he had received no part of it ; but he afterwards acknow-
ledged that he got a portion, and no more. It subsequently
appeared that he received the whole. It was sworn, likewise,
that he received, in a certain prosecution, the costs of certain
witnesses from the country, which he afterwards charged
against his client; and, furthermore, that he pretended to have
issued a writ, which was not the fact. Mr. Byles said, that
as the person was an attorney, he did not apprehend that he
could be indicted ; but, in the first instance, they thought it
better to call on him to show cause why he should not be struck
off the roll.--Application granted.

...MAY 6.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
CHALL AND BRAY.
Mr. WATsoN appeared to show cause against the rule
obtained in this case. This action was originally tried before
the Sheriffs of Wakefield in Yorkshire, and a verdict was
given for the plaintiff. It would appear that the plaintiff and
another person had made an agreement to run their hurses for
a wager of 25/. on each side on the public road at Hudders-
field, and the plaintiff having failed to run his horse
on the day appointed, the money which he depo-
sited was considered to be forfeited. But the plaintiff
having objected to the person who held the stakes, brought
his action against the defendant, and obtained a verdict
for 15/., the money which was declared to be forfeited.
There were two objections raised; one that the agreement to
run the horses having been signed by a person of the name of
Eastwood, who was represented as the agent of Challand, the
action was misconceived. But the main question was whether
the race was one of a legal character or not.
Mr. WATSON contended that a race to trot for four miles
on a public turnpike road was illegal, and referred to the
statutes of the 16th of Charles 11., and the 13th and 18th of
George 11. on the subject. He also contended that it was a
nuisance, and that the most serious consequences might result,
it such races were to be sanctioned.

Mr. BAINEs appeared to support the rule, and referred to
the Act of the 3d and 4th of Victoria, chap. Li, which repealed
the statute of 13th of George 11., as far as it related to the
subject of horse-sating, and quoted the case of Evans v. Pratt,
when it was decided that a race of four miles across the country
was not illegal.
His Loensitir took time to consider the question.

COUR7' OF BANKRUPTCY, May 3.
THOMAS ROBINSON'S BANKRUPTCY.-THE LATE TALLOW

SP ECU L AT lON.
This bankrupt, whose case has been several times before re-
ported, appeared before the Court on his adjourned final exa-
mination. His present debts and liabilities are stated at
50,0001. and his assets about 5,000/.
Mr. Maynard said the assignees were not yet satisfied with
the bankrupt's accounts, which showed various discrepancies
to a large amount.
Mr. Bodkin said, however irregular the conduct of the bank-
rupt had been in not keeping books, he was sure the assignees
themselves were aware that it was not intended as a cover to
fraud. He had a bona fide intention in all that he had done,
though lie had lost nearly 40,000/. in the tallow speculation, and
the accounts he now presented were the best he could furnish.
The bankrupt having entered into a detailed explanation of
the discrepancies complained of by the assignees in his ac-
counts, said that upwards of a million of ills had passed
through his hands in the year; the stamp duty alone was up-
wards of 14,0001., and every one of these bills was entered in
his bill•book. He had given his creditors every opportunity of
testing his integrity and of the total absence of fraud in his ac-
counts. He wished to pass his examination as an honest man,
or not at all.

After some further conversation, during which it was stated
that the bankrupt had no materials with which to furnish a
better acconnt,

111 r. Commissioner MERIVALE said it appeared to him that
the bankrupt could not give a better account, and as the as-
signees were satisfied no fraud existed, much as he depre-
cated the system of carrying on business without books, the
bankrupt having sworn he had given the best account he
could render, he thought he would be justified in allowing him
to pass.
The bankrupt was accordingly passed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT; May .5.
IN RE FREDERICK BUCK.
The insolvent in this case was described as formerly of Long
Lodge, Blenheim Park, gentleman, and subsequently of Bow-
common, manufacturing chemist. In the year 1834 he was
discharged under the Act with liabilities and debts amounting
to upwards of 14,0001. His petition to be discharged was
supported by Mr. Cooke, and opposed by Mr. Woodroffe, on
behalf of Mr. Benjamin Andrews.
In his examination he stated that he was induced to
enter upon the business of manufacturing chemist in Bow,
at the suggestion of a person named Badcock, who acted as Ins
foreman, and managed his business generally. This person
contracted with the Charter Gas Company for the supply of
a quantity of vitriol, but the terms of the contract were such,
that the insolvent found it was attended with a great losss, and
he consequently determined to give it up, and cease business.
He then sold out the property upon the premises, and having met
with a serious accident, upon his recovery he found Badeeck in
possession of the premises, carrying on business, and receiving
goods as usual in his (the insolvent's) name. Among the
debts contracted by Badcock was the one forming the subject
of the present opposition, upon which the insolvent was sued,