The Express.
London, England, 1862-04-29 00:00:00

tato tuttillgence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH .APRIL
_.•••••___RlL 28.
EOM V. PORTER.—NAINTINANOI Or • WI?!.
'Title war an action recently tried at Maidstone before
Lord Chief Justice Erie, when the jury returned • verdict
for the amount claimed for necessaries supplied to the de-
tendert'. wife. The ilefecdeut on the trial pleaded never
indebted, and his defence was his non-liability in conse-
quence of hi. wife's adultery with Major Rosa, • member of I
nee of the volunteer corps. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine • few
days since moved for a rule nisi for a new trial, and the
court took time to communicate with the learned judge
who tried the cue.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said the court
bad communicated with Lord Chief Justice Erie.
After consulting him, and the matter being •
question entirely for the jury, and the learned judge not
having reported that be was dissatisfied with the verdict,
the court were of opinion that they ought not to disturb it.
The court bed taken into consideration that this was ea
action for neceseariee supplied to a wife, which did not bind
the defendant in soy future actions, where the whole mat-
ter could be again gone into. Without expressing any
opinion as to the propriety of its being done, the court
refused the rule.
Rule refused accordingly.

THZ HITIRNATIORAL EXHIBITION.
On their Lordships return from lunch,
The Lord Chief Justice said be had been informed that
the Court of Common Pleas and the Court of Exchequer
had both announced their intent.on of not sitting on Thurs-
day next, the day appointed for the opening of the I urn-
national Exhibition. Under these circumstances, he thought
it was very little nes for this court to sit whilst the other
were closed, and that they might as well act together, and
the judges of this court take a holiday as well as the othen.
There would be no sitting at chambers that day, but the
writ and bills of sale offices would be open.

LINDIELT, D.P., AND OTHERS, T. LILTED= AND OTNIML
This will an action tried before the Lord Chief Justice at
the last sittings at GuildhalL It was an action on a marine
policy involving a very large sum of money, and turned on
the question whether the Thabinger was a total or partial
loss. The ease occupied five days in tryi, and at its con-
clusion the jury found for the plaintiff that it was a total
low.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., now moved for a rule nisi for a new
trial, on the ground that the verdict was againstthe evidence.
Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—APau, 28.
Sittings in Bance.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erle, and
Justices Wills, Bylss, and Seating.)
raw (cunt) e. THE IIZTROPOLITAN BOARD OP HOILID-•••
THE MOUT OP HOMBIRLIG HOOMILB IN THE CITY.
The plaintiff in this cam, the clerk to the City Commis.
'loners of Sewers, claimed to recover 40s. damages from the
defendants, because they bad defaced the numbers of the
houses in Pann.etreet, Alderegate. Fann-street WIZ in the
City of London, and the City Commissionersof Sewers had
since 1856 caused the houses in that street to be numbered
consecutively. The Metropolitan Board, however,
asotm-
Mg to act under the 141st section of the 18 and
19 Vie., cap. 120, had altered such numbering,
by placing all the odd numbers upon one ride• of the
street, and the even numbers upon the other side. Coder
these circumstances the questions submitted to the court
were, Ist, whether the Commissioners of Sewers of the City
had authority to number houses in the street. included
within the City Sewers Act (1848) ; 2odly, whether the
Board of Works had authority to number houses and name
streets in the City and 3ralv, whether the order of the
board over-rode the order of the commissioners in the

MUM
Mr. Hannan appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Gray for
the defeodaate.
The Lord Chief Justice said that it seemed to him that
if two separate bodies had each power to number houses,
the operation of such power' would be destructive of each I
other ; sod therefore he mom to the conclusion I
that the two powers could not coexist, and that
the power given by the later sat over•rode that given
by the former. Beyoud that, the 1414 section of the act of
the Board of Works in express terms enacted that it should
be lawful for the Metropolitan Board to number the houses
io every street in the metropolis,' and it was clear that the
metropolis included the City of Loudon. Under these tdr•
etunstancee be came to the conclusion that the sowed sad
third questions must be answered in the affirmative ; and
this being sufficient to dispose of the case, he should give no
aaswer at all to the first question, because any. such answer
would, under the circumstances, bp oz.tri-judiriaL
Judgment for the defendants.

COURT OF BANKRUPTOY.—Aran. ZB
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburs.)
IN BE SODIUGUS.
The bankrupt was a wine merchant, of Little Tower-
stmt. This was the adjourned sitting for examination and
&charge. Debts 1,4721 ;no assets.
Mr. Sarg•ood opposed, *for a large creditor, from whom
the bankrupt had obtained 4471. worth of wine a short time
before his bankruptcy. The bankrupt had been required to
file a goods and cash account, but had neglected to do so.
The case was adjourned sine die, with protection for a
month.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Youblanque.)
IX BE PHILIP ZAPHAEL.
The bankrupt was a wine and spirit merchant and cigar
dealer, of the St. James's Tavern, Dukeatreet, Aldgate.
His debts and liabilities are 6,4004 ; the assets have yielded
dividends of 2s. 44. in the pound. This was the certificate
sitting. the case being under the old act.
Mr. Sargood and Mr. Solomon opposed for the assignees;
Mr. Linklater supported.
The principal charge against the bankrupt was that he
had obtained about 50001. worth of goods on credit io a
very short period, and had sent them out to his son to
Melbourne, from whom very little had been reoeived in the
shape of returns. On the part of the son it was alined
that he bad lost 1,0001. by a fire on his premises at Mel-
boum, and only 4501. had bees obtained from him. The
bankrupt bad first represented the goods as ooneigned, and
then as sold, to his son ; but there was nothing in his boots
to show the nature of the transaction. His son owed him
at the time 700/. or 8001., but be took no security for pay-
ment for the goods, not eves his own acceptance.
Mr. Linklater complained that the assignees had kepi
back information which showed that the son of the bank-
rupt had admitted the receipt of goods of 3,5001. (which
be maid had been sold by auction for 1,0001.), and had given
up other goods worth 5281. Adding to these Iteles the
amount destroyed by the fire, the whole of the good! were
accounted for. The Lords Justices had recently held, in the
ease of " Evans v. Barnard (an appeal from this court), that
the assignees of bankrupts were bound by the statements of
agents employed by them to look after consignments. la
this case every one of the letters from the agents of the as-
signees were entirely confirmatory of the bankrupt's state-
ment. He had been in business in London for 36 years, had I
never failed before, and had made no misrepresentation as
to his object in purchasing the goods. He had been before
the court since January, 1461, aid from beginning to end
he had done all in his power to assist his assignees.
His Honour said the cue was one of very great suspicion.
and he could take no more favourable view of it than that
it was one of moat reckless and improvident trading. In
respect of that the certificate, which would be of the lowest
class, muss be suspended for two years from the date offer
last examination (12th of June Lath but protection w
be given in the interval.