The Express.
London, England, 1847-10-21 00:00:00

SECONDARIES• COURT.

Before Mr. BeeloodarVame•
POBT.OeTten DISPALCATIONB.—The QUEEN r. LnerTN
AND ANOTI4 Ml.—This eras a writ of extent, prosecuted by
the postmaster general, on behalf of the crown, and directed
to the sheriff of London, authorising him to inquire, by a
jury, of what property the defendants, Benjamin Lewin and
lit wife were posaereed of within his bailiwick.—The defend-
ants kept r, district post-office in Little Knightrider.street,
City; and they were declared by a jury, at the Sheriffs'
Coast, on Thursday last, debtors to the crown in the sum of
1661., for postage on letters received by them, stamp', enve-
lopes, itc. The effect of that verdict haa been, that all the
deffindaate property was seized upon to satisfy the
Grown debt, and the present inquiry was to ascertain its
value. Hildyard, the sheriffs' officer, it appeared, made the
seizure. The property consisted of household furniture end
the *remnants of the stuck-irstrade, the defendants having
carried on en oil and Italian business. Evidence was then
Oren of its value, which an auctioneer estimated at 301., and
the jury was directed to find that the defendants had pro-
perty of that value within the jurisdiction of the sheriff—
verdict accordingly...M. Peacock, the solicitor to the
General Post.office, said that the reason of Mrs. Lewin's
name bring inserted in the writ was, that prior to her mar-
riage with Mr. Lewin she was appointed a receiver, and
upon her marriage no transfer of the appointment to the
husband took place, therefore she was, in fact, the bon.l.ffile
debtor to the crown, although the husband was legally
responsible.

COUNTY COURT.

Before D. C. lloylgo, let, Judge.
THR ST. JAMES'S ASSEMBLY ROOMS (C)tocnroati's)
Canoe r. Surrie.—The p'aintiff in this case, the wax-chan-
dler of Green-street, Leicester-square, claimed of the defen-
dant, Mr. E. Smith, an auctioneer, carrying o business
near Red Lion-square, the sum of N. se. Ild. for wax candles
supplied at the St. James's usembly-rooms, from May to
July last. The cue came on for hearing originally on the
25th of Sept., but was adjourned until yesterday for further
evidence.—lt appeared that in the month of January last the
St. James'saisetably-rooms were opened by two Frenchmen,
named Guignes and Fray, who continued proprietors until
the month of April, when getting into difficulties, the sheriff
of Middlesex took possession, and the present defendant, be-
ing the auctioneer under the sheriff, entered upon the pre-
mises under a bill of sale, which had been given b a person
named Norden. The rums were not closed,
but Smith, the
defendant, acted as manager of them. During that time the
goods were supplied upon orders from the defendant, signed
by Norden. On the last occasion Smith swore that he was
Indy acting as the agent to Guignes and Fray, but the learned
judge was of opinion that sufficient evidence to establish his
liability had been given, and thetas. was adjourned.--Yester-
day the defendant did not appear, and considerable difficulty
was experienced in proving his handwriting, the plaintiff
relying solely on his attendance to do so.—The learned judge
said, that although the 83rd section of the act gave the power
to examine parties and their wives, he thought it was not
proper for plaintiffs to rely solely upon the attendance of a
defendant to prove their case, without taking some trouble
to get other evidence, or to give notice by subpinna to the
defendant to attend.—Robert Hamlin, whose duty it was to
attend to the lights at the assembly-rooms, said he believed
the whole of the candles charged for bad been delivered.
He proved that he was engaged by Mr. Smith after Ouignea
and Fray ceased to have anything to do with the concern, and
that Norden, in whose name the orders for the wax-lights
were given, was Smith's " deputy." He took the order to
Mr. Childs.—Other evidence having been given, the
learned Judge, addressing Mr. Norton, who appeared
for the defendant, said : I do not tee, Mr. Norton, hew you
can establish an anewer to the case.—Mr. Norton said be
should be in a condition, when the plaintiff's eau was closed,
to argue a point of law before his honour.—The Judge
Let me draw your attention to the 98th section of the act,
which gives me the power to refuse to allow you to argue
any point. The words are : " But no barrister, attorney,
or other person shall be entitled to argue any case unless by
leave of the judge." I should be very sorry to exercise
such power if there were any grounds for my not doing so,
but, feeling that it would only be a waste of the public time,
I must refuse to bear you.—Mr. Norton said Mr. Smith had
been the victim of a parcel of Frenchmen, who had not
only got him into trouble, but were doing all they could, by
the production of bills which be had paid in their behalf, to
induce parties to sue him for debts for which they were
liable. He trusted the court would give some time for the
payment —An order was made for payment of the debt and
coma on the 17th of November.

IKPORT•NT TO " TALLYNITI. —ln • "tall)" ease, in
which the waterman at the coach-stead opposite Bucking.
ham Palace was defendant, the learned judge, addressing
the plaintiff, said, "Don't you think it just that you should
let these men know what transactions are going on with
their wives in these cues ? I think you are bound front
time to time to let your customers (the husbands, for they
are the persons to whom credit is given) know how their ac-
counts stand, and not let them stand over for a period of
three year., then take them by surprise, when they can get
no evidence, and bring them here. In the present case you
actually charge the man for an article for his own use, and
yet you never apply once to hint for payment. I cannot
make up my mind to inflict what I consider • grow injustice
upon the man, by making him pay, and therefore the cave is
dismissed.—The plaintiff, who had marked the debt in his
bock "doubtful,' appeared much chagrined, and left the
court

WHITECHAPEL COUNTY COURT.
Before Serput Manntng.
WiOsa is To. LIVERY.—AIIROWSMITH v. RIMEL—
In this cue the plaintiff sued the defendant, James Reeves
Esq., for 7s. 6d , the amount of a week's wages, and 'lst;
compensation for the Ices of a suit of livery.—lt appeared
that on the Bth of July last, the plaintiff, who was in the
service of the defendant u a coachman, was ordered by his
master to get the carriage ready to drive him to Watmesd,
but instead of so doing, two hours afterwards he was dii-
covered the worse for liquor in the stable, and dismissed on
the spot. He refused to give up his livery, and was sum-
moned by his master before Mr. Ballantine, who ordered
him to strip off the clothe, as be clearly had no title to
them.—Mr. Pelham, on the part of Mr. Reeves, contended
that his client was not liable, on the ground that the mis-
conduit of the plaintiff, In respect to the carriage, authorised
the discharge instanter by his master. It was argued, on
the other hand, by the plaintaf's solicitor, that this act did
not amount to such wilful misconduct as to disentitle him to
his wages.—The learned judge held that, as the servant had
neglected his duty, his muter was justified in discharging
him. It was not a wrongful discharge, and that being so he
was net entitled to wages or claims, and the plaintiff must be
neasuited.