The Express.
London, England, 1863-10-23 00:00:00

DI II A. •LOTD.-THE BRANDON =TAM.

The bankrupt was a ecboolrnistress, of Walworth. Debts
56f. only.
Mr. Sargood stated that the bankrupt was in ma
tody. She had been one of the tenants on the
Brandon estate in Widworth ; and the trusters bad been
obliged. as in many other cases. to bring so action of eject.
ment to recover possearion,onsocount of the bankrupt fancy
lug that she bad some sort of right to the property. the
was now in custody in Horsemonger.latie gaol, for refusing
to give op her titirdeede ; and she imagined that she vu
the freeholder of the very gaol where mho had been comfiest
After shifting the possession of the deeds from one pram,
to another, she refused to give them up, and still remained
in custody.
His Honour said the question was whether the woman
was to be kept in custody for ever on account of her fancied
right to the property. Suck circumstances were sever coo.
templated for a moment in the passing of the act ; the
bankrupt would therefore take her whose from custody.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

(THIS DAY.)

(Before the Moiatant-Judge)

The court eat this day at the Guildhall, Westminster, to
hear appeals. There were 36 on the list, of which 24 were
as regarded the settlement of paupers, and the remainder
against rating of property, with one exception, which wee
spinet the conviction by Mr. Leigh, the magistrate,
of Henry Palmer as • rogue sod vagabond. The
rate appeals were as follows :—Junes Gerard,
against poor-rates of Hampton-wick ; the Rev.
Henry Paul Mason and others. against • lighting rate of
Hampton Wick • the United Kingdom Electric Telegraph
Company against the poor-rates of the township of Ur.
bridge ; the Great Central Gas Consumers' Company, against
• poor-rate of St. Mary, Whites:lmpel ; the Metropolitan
Railway Company. against the poor-rates of the parishes of
• Marylebone and St Sepulchre ; the London Dock Com-
pany, against the pooe.rates and general rates, and metro-
polis management rates, of the parish of St. Paul, ShaderelL
The appeal against the conviction of the magistrate wee
deferred until the 4th of November, at Cferkenwell. and all
the rest, with the exception of the appeals by the Loader
Dock Company, were deferred until the sort 's No
day was named for taking the London Dock Compaoy's ap.
peals, bat the subject will be mentioned on the next appeal
der; vigteen ther
itai:mapwill be
peals, fixedonflory themof to be
interest
en.
as appeal by Barking against St. Matthew's, Bethnal-gum.
Mr. Smart appeared for the appellants ; Mr. Poised for
the respondents..
This was a very curious came—the settlement of a pauper
named Jasper Sumner Anton, being based on what is called&
settlement by estate by marriage, in which he
clain,rd his settlement in the pariah of Bark*,
in Essex. It seemed that about forty three
.years
ago Norton married • woman who was in the stemma of
a cottage, for which she
_paid Is. 6d. per week rent After
the marriage be went to live with hie wife in this cottage,
and remained there for about • year and • half, and he
bad never sines the. resided more than ten miles from
Barking. On these grounds it was contended that this
estate gave him the right of settlement in the appellant
parish.
Mr. Smart, in support of the appeal, cited the case of
" The Queen v. Tborntos," where a similar claim was made
for an estate by marrying a widow who rented a house with
a cootinuous residua*. I. that ease Mary Collins. in 1819,
was tenant of and residing in a cellar of a cottage, for which
she paid Is. per week rent. She married J. W., who resided
with his wife, occupied the tenement for seven years
and paid the mot weekly. Os this case being
brought before the Court of Queens Bench la
1860, the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn held that
the man war here in possession of a continuing estate for
the required time ; and Justice Crompton said the real
interest of the woman wee from week to week until deter-
mined, and the husband came into possession, not by rest.
log a tenement, but he acquired the seat* by mar-
riage, sod having resided there 40 days. That
gave him a settlement, unless it was made out
affirmatively that the estate was put an cod to, and the only
question was if be took on the marriage • sew estate ; but
there war no evidence of any such surrender, and the order
was accordingly coofirmed. This case was identical with
that nowbeforethe court. . . .

hir7iaZiVaii;;;;Wistial difference took place in the
present coma as after the smarmy the man went to the land.
Lord and took the thefts on hinualf, which VIVA • surrender
of the estate of the wge.

Thu I:Teiniuooovtr4dioted by the appellants,
The Ansistant4odge .rid that destroyed the forma
esttte, and quashed the order no Barking, with costa.
At the sitting of the court, John Griffith Frith, Faq.,
3=ed as • jostles of the pence for the county of ktitt•

THE POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)