The Express.
London, England, 1851-09-23 00:00:00

done for the creditors. There might bo a sequestratic
issued.

Mr. Cooke said there could be no sequestration, as it was
not in the nature of abenefice..

The i;;01.;e-n—t-vii;.-di;iiii;:i forthwith.

IN RE CHZELEB FUMY.

This insolvent, an estate agent, was opposed by Mr.
Cooke, fur Sir John Hare. Mr. Nichols supported.
An application was made for possession of some premises,
of which Sir John Hare was the landlord, but now in the
possession of a third party.
The Chief Commissioner declined to order possession.
The insolvent was discharged.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—YrsrEnavr.

The sittings of the court for the September General Ses-
sion were resumed this morning, by adjournment from
Clerkenwell, at the Guildhall, Westminster, before Mr.
Serjcant Adams (Assistant Judge), Mr. Witham, Mr.
Pownall, Mr. Woodward Mr. A. Smith Bm.

The calendar contained the names of 61 prisoners for
trial, 56 of whom were charged with felony.
On the panel of traverse jurors being called over, it was
found that twenty-two only were in attendance, and the
summoning officer, in answer to the court, stated that he
hail served thirty-sin summonses.
The learned judge wished to know why the high bailiff
had disobeyed the order made by the court at the last
session. On that occasion thirty-sir jurors only were sum-
moned, and that number not being sufficient, he had directed
the summoning officer to inform the high bailiff that he
was to 'summon forty-eight in future. Notwithstanding
which thirty-sic only had been summoned, twenty-two only
were present, and the consequence was that a serious impe-
diment was thrown in the way of the court in proceeding
with the regular business. lie wished to know if the sum-
moning officer had communicated to the high bailiff the
order of the court.
The summoning officer said he did inform Mr. Smedley,
and that gentleman said thirty-six jurors were sufficient,
and he should not summon more.

The learned judge asked if Mr. Smedley was present.
The officer said he was rot, he was in Ilertford.hire.

The learned judge said it was perhaps a fortunate thing
for Mr. Smedley that he was not present, for as sure as his
name was Smedley, he would have committed him to prison
had he been in court. As it was he should consider as to
inflicting a fine upon him—not being aware at that mo
meat of the precise power of the court in that respect.
Several members of the bar said tbo court hail precise',
the same power over the high bailiff, as over the sheriff.
The learned judge said, if that was so, he should impose
upon Mr. Smedley a fine of 201., and it the summoning
officer dared to come again with a panel of thirty-six, he
assuredly would commit him. Ho then directed the officer
to let Mr. Smedley know, without delay, what had taken
place.
ROBBERY AT VIE EXIIIBITION.

Thomas Much, was indicted for having stolen a packet of
chocolate, the property of Francois °Amain Leopold
Gerain. •

The prisoner pleaded guilty.
The evidence in this case was shortly this. The prisoner
sou in the Exhibition on the 18th instant, and he was ob-
served by an officer in plain clothes to go up to a stall and
take up a packet of chocolate and put it in his pocket. Ile
walked away, but, before ho had got far, the officer stopped
him, and took him into custody. The prisoner begged hard
to be released, stating that he merely took the chocolate far
a friend to taste, but that was not complied with, and he
was searched. About 41. were found upon him, and on a
search being made at his lodgings, 4, Poland-street, there
were found a quantity of chocolate, corresponding with that
he was detected in stealing, a dozen pencils, a cake of soap,
some wax tapers, two memorandum books, several porte
monaie, and foreign money to the amount of 201. The
articles had been stolen from the Exhibition, and the officer
stated that he could have preferred seven indictments
against him. There were three, but the prisoner only
pleaded guilty to one, and he was not tried on the others.
The Court sentenced him to six months' hard labour.
THE ROBBERY IN PALL-MALL.

Frederick Otto !foreman's, 21, was indicted for stealing a
gold watch and other articles, value 1001., the property of
James Keene Hawkins, in his dwelling-house.
The prosecutor was a barrister, and resided at No. 50,
Pall-mall. The prisoner called upon him a week or two
ago and represented himself as being acquainted with a
' friend of his, who lived abroad, and as he appeared to be
in want, ho (prosecutor) gave him half a sovereign and
some food. Ile called agani on the 12th inst., and the pro-
serutor again relieved him, and whilst be was there Mr.
Hawkins went into his bedroom. laid down on the bed and
fell asleep. The prisoner, it appeared, immediately began
to plunder the room, and he took away the articles men-
tioned in the indictment, which were estimated by
Mr. Hawkins to be worth 1001. Information was
given to the police, and, from something that had come
to his knowledge, Rogers, 153 C, went to 27, Rupert-street,
where he found the prisoner. On his person the officer
found a gold watch, two rings, and other articles, which
were afterwards identified by the prosecutor; and, on the
prisoner's room being searched, a quantity of plate wan
found, which also was identified by the prosecutor.
The prisoner pleaded guilty.
A foreign gentleman stated that official documents found
in the prisoner's possession showed that up to the month of
March in the present year the prisoner bad borne a very
good character on the continent.
He was sentenced to imprisonment, with hard labour, for

one year.
It was stated in court, but not publicly, that the prisoner
was the son of a continental banker.
STEALING FROM VERRET'S.
C. Sturtan was convicted of stealing a silver sugar basin,
from the shop of Mr. Louis Verrey, 3, Pall-mall, and ho
was sentenced to four months' hard !Lour.
Shortly
_before the rising of the court the learned judge
directed Mr. Smedley 's officer to summon two more Junes
to try the bail cases, as the number at present in attend-
ance was inadequate ; and he said that it was possible
there existed some misunderstanding, and not wishing to
do anything unkind or harsh to Mr. Smedley, he would
take off the fine he had inflicted, but at the same time Mr.
Smedley must understand that though he discharged the
duties of sheriff he was but an nndenheriff, or an officer
in the petition of an undershcriff, and he (the learned judge)
hoped this would not occur again.
Mr. Parry applied to the court under these circum-
stances. He was instructed, by a certificated attorney, to
prosecute in a case that would come before the court, and
whilst that attorney was in court, engaged in the conduct
of his case, a sheriff's officer had been brought in by
another attorney, at whose instance he (Mr. Parry's client)
was arrested. Ile therefore had to apply that the court
would order a release, and direct that the officer should
not molest him so long at least as he was in or about the
court.
The learned judge made the order.