The Sun. — 1855-12-01 (London, England)

THE QUEEN V. GORDON. The prisoner was indicted, with one Davidson, for felony, in not surrendering to a fiat in bankruptcy which had been issued against them. Upon the trial before Mr. Justice Erle, at the Central Criminal Court, several objections were taken and they were reserved for the opinion of this Court, and they were argued on the 10th inst„ when the Court gave judgment in seven of them, but, not agreeing upon the eighth, it was ordered to be re-argued before all the judges. This point was this : The two bankrupts having left this country before they were made bankrupts, their counting-house was taken possession of by the messenger under the bankruptcy. He left one copy of the notice of the adjudication at the counting-house. It was urged that, as there were two partner:4, it was necessary that two copies of the notice should have been left. Mr. Chambers (with Mr. 0. Harrison) appeared for the prisoner, and said the question turned upon the construction of the 12th and 13th of Victoria, chap. 100. Ho contended that there should have been served upon leach bankrupt a separate and distinct copy of the adjudication and a notice of the filing of the petition. Each partner in bankruptcy was considered to be a distinct individual. Baron Parke said the doubt was whether each partntr was not entitled to a separate notice—whether a notice addressed to both and left at the counting-house was sufficient. Mr. Chambers said the words of the statute were that the notice should be served personally, or left at his place of abode, or at his last known place of business. It was clear it was not served personally ; but a paper, and one paper alone, was left at the place of business of the two bankrupts. That paper was to perform the part of a summons and the part of a notice. The party was called upon to come in and be examined, and the paper also gave him notice that he had been adjudged bankrupt, and on the back of this paper was a form of protection from arrest. Each bankrupt had aright to a copy which he might carry in his pocket. It would not be enough to M a n to leave a copy at the place of abode cf one partner Tr. Bramwell appeared for the prosecution, nd mitted that the statute kad been complied wits. h by ino. a notice at the last known place of busineg• leav'Baron Parke said, if served pe a notice served on each ; if left- a rt" then and if left at all p-iylai; therece of must be abode it must be left at the place of abodenotice for each. One nt e the place of business it must be a Mr. Bramwell did not think that followed.thtahtetwowas s uffi 0 notice left at the place of The Court having businessadjoudneftor a few minutes for consideration, Lord Campbell land stated that he was of opinion that the objection was fatal that the Legislature intended , each person should have notice. Barons Parke and Alderson, and JusticesaCmr Campbell. Williams, -and Crompton agreed with Lord c Lord Chief Justice Jervis, Justices Erle and Willes, as thought one notice sufficient. Conviction qued.  REVOLTING 'Num!luarY.—An accident occurred last the Retford side of the Worksop Railway stant near cthe .Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, by which the stoker of one of the trains, named Wilkinson, had his leg frightfully smashed. The poor fellow, bleeding profusely, was conveyed from the place of the accident on a board to the station. Application was made to the owners of three different houses to admit him, but without success !—Doncaster Chronicle. THE ASSASSINATION IN LEICESTERSHIRE,—John Acres Fowkes, the young man who was shot as he sat in his grandfather's house at Snareston, on Sunday night (as noticed in Thursday's Sun), died of the wounds then be befor inflicted upon him on Thursday. An inquest will held on the body on Saturday (this) morning, John Mr. J. Gregory, coroner for Leicestershire. 0 is in Fowkes, jun., an uncle of the murdered man, h ed to custody, charged with the offence, been the county gaol at Leicester, to await furtherremov exarainaV.on,