The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-18 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 18, 1864.

TEE CODRINGTON DIVORCE CASE.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ICQUITY COURTB.—Nov. 17.
(Before Vier°lamellar Sir R. T. Kinder*ley.)
IN BE WILLIAM HALL—TEL EAST OP ENGLAND BANE
Mr. Lindley moved that a writ of sequestration should be
issued against the estate of Mr. William Hall, a gentleman
residing in Norfolk, under the following circumstances :
Mr. Hall was placed on the list of contributories, but he
had gone to France, having first made over all his property
to his sou-in-law. An order for substituted service bad
been made upon the son-in-law, and the time limited in that
order having expired, an application was made at the office
for • writ of sequestration against Mr. Hall's estate, but the
office refused to issue the writ on the ground that the
return to a writ of attachment must first be produced.
No such return, however, could be made, because
before obtaining a writ of attachment an affidavit must be
made that the party was in this country, whereas Mr. Hall
was in France. Undertheeecircumstances he applied that the
court should direct that a writ of sequestration should issue
without its being necessary first to issue a writ of attach-
ment. The learned counsel cited the cue of " Butler and
Matthews," 19 Beason, 549, and "Hodgson r. Hodgson," 23
Beeves, 601.
His Honour said if the practice of the court were that, in
order to get a writ of sequestration you most first get an
attachment, to do which it was necessary to swear that the
party was in this country, the effect would be that there
would be no provision in the case of a party not being in
this country, and therefore no means of sequestrating his
estate. Upon the authority of the cases cited he would
make the order.

town for low fever inhugust lairt,and on his return in Oetooer
the annoyance was repeated, an organ-roan regularly play-
ing facing his windows twice a week. He bad months ago
given notice to the person who encouraged this that be was
annoyed, and had repeatedly applied to the police, who had
given hint all the assistance in their power to abate the
nuisance. On the evening of the 9th he was still suffering
under indisposition, when an organ.grinder came in front of
his dwelling. He went oat to give the man into custody,
when the drawing-room window at defendant's house oppo.
site was opened, and defendant's wife encouraged the man
to continue playing. On complainant saying that such con-
duct was disgraceful, defendant mailed to the window, and
said that if he did not leave be would give him • bone-
whipping.
The defendant observed that the complainant had written
him an insulting, impertinent letter respecting the organs.
Had he been asked in • gentlemanly way be should
willingly have complied with the request, but he would not
submit to bullying from him or anybody else. On the night
spoken of his wife opened the window, when complainant
bellowed at and scolded her, when he threatened to horse-
' whip him, and meant to have done it bad he continued his
misconduct. It was not to be borne that • man's wife was
to be insulted and a crowd collected before his door in this
way. He wished to know whether be was left without a re-
medy against a man for creating an annoyance of this de-
scription.
Mr. Sella said that the complainant seemed to have the
best right to complain of annoyance, and he must beg to say
that if Mrs. Synoot bad been brought there for aiding and
abetting the organ-man in remaining, and the case bad been
proved against her, she would have found the weight of
the law.

MSfondant inquired whether complainant had a right to
send an organ•man away from playing in front of Ma (de-
fondant's) house.
Mr. Self. replied that complainant might send him off if
he played in the neighbourhood of his house or within his
hearing, and if defendant encouraged him there he would
do so at him risk. He considered it was most disgraceful,
unneighbourly, and unchriatianlike to annoy a neighbour in
this way, and defendant must find one surety in 501. to
keep the pease.
Bail was immediately put in.
THAMES.

Alfred Hampton, a dock labourer, aged 35, was brought
before Mr. Papt, charged with stealing wine in the London
Docks.

Henry Davis. in the employ of the Loodoa Docks Com-
piny, stated that the previous afternoon he was paring •
gang of labourers on the wine quay and heard one of them
say Rise up." The man who made this exclamation was
looking over a long wooden shuts on which goods are sent
down to ships. He went round the chute, which was at the
bead of some casks of wine, and found the prisoner between
two make of wine, and leaning over one of them. He re-
mained until the prisoner rose from the 'mak, and saw wine
flow out of his mouth, and wine came out of • wooden tube
which he had need in sucking wine out of the cask. He
then conveyed the prisoner to the elation-home.
In answer to Mr. Paget the witness said he told the pri-
soner to leave the mak directly he saw him, but he paid no
attention to him and did not leave the ask until he had •
good drink of wine.
Edward Ellis, • dock constable, said he examined a cask
of sherry from which the priseuer had been drinking and
found a hole bad been bored in it with • gimlet. The pri-
saner was sober when he was brought to the dock watch-
house ; but the wine soon operated upon him and he became
intoxicated. The prisoner's breath smelt of wine and the
tube also.

Mr. Paget—Sherry wine!
Witoess—Sherry wine, sir.
Mr. Paget—la there much of this going on is the dock?
Ellis—l am afraid there is, sir. The labourers secrete
tubes about them and get to the casks of wine. Every
possible vigilanoe is used, bat we can't always detect them
" riding the posy," as this system of robbery is celled.
Prisoner—l never rode the pony before.
Mr. Paget-1 must make an example d you. I sentence
you to one month's imprisonment and bard labour in the
House of Correction.