The Express.
London, England, 1847-10-15 00:00:00

tab) intellignur.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
Before Mr. trader Sheriff Bur hell.
POST-OFFICE DEPALCATION.—THE QUEEN V. LEWIN
AND ANOTHER.—This wu a commission, prosecuted on be-
half of the crown by the authorities of the General Post-
office. The defendant', Benjamin Lewin and his wife, were
keepers of s district post-office in Little North Ryder-street,
in the City, and in their transactions with the General Post-
office they because debtors to the amount of 1661. Is. ld., for
stamps, envelopes, and postage on letters received by them.
The defendants became insolvent, and an execution was put
in their house, whereupon the Post-office authorities sued
out this process, in order to secure the goods and effects from
that execution until the arrears due to the Post office revenue
were cleared up. An affidavit of the debt, sworn before a
commissioner at judge's chambers, was put in by Mr. Smith,
of the General Post-office, which proved the ease on behalf
of the crown.—By the direction of the learned under-sheriff,
the jury found that the defendant' were indebted to the
crown en the sum of 1661. Is. ld.
WRIT OF EXTIAT.—Tua QUEEN V. BID:HAIL—TU.
was a writ of extent, directing the sheriff of Middlesex to
inquire by a jury of what goods and effects the defendant
I was possessed within his jurisdiction. This was also • pro-
I cess prosecuted by her Majesty's Postmaster-General. The
defendant wu the keeper of a post office in Lamb's Con-
dolt-street, and, having become insolvent, his goods were
seized by the sheriff in order to secure the arrears due to the
General Post-office.—Mr. Hemp, the bailiff, proved the
seizure, and an auctioneer and *praise, valued the goods
at 1001. 103. This being insufficient to cover the demand, a
number of debts were seized, a list of which wu sworn to
by the defeadant as accurate.—The defendant said he had a
reversionary interest in some freehold and leasehold
property at Hampstead, but the goods and the
debts were sufficient to pay what was claimed
by the crown. The jury were directed to find the defendant
possessed of the property set forth in the inventory, and that
the defendant had owing to him the various debts specified.
—Verdict accordingly.
PROCLAMATION or OCTLAWRY.—The following Were
called upon to surrender themselves into the custody of the
sheriff of Middlesex, or stead severally outlawed: Andrew
Henry Lynch, Arthur Hogue, Philip Bennet Lucas, Ri-
aimed Norman, William Paget, commonly known as Lord
William Paget, W. W. Sleigh, and Edward Kent Bayard.

COURT OF EXCISE.
Before Admiral the Hon. W.ll. Percy, H. F. Stephenson, Fad., and
C. J. Herrios, Esq.
TIM SALOON IN BOW-11111ZET.—Henry Sampson, of
Bow street, was charged on three informations with retailing
beer, spirituous liquors, and tobacco, without • license.—
Mr. Miller, Q.C., appeared on behalf of the crown ; Mr.
Hawkins for the defence.—Mr. Miller, in a short althea,
detailed the facts, as given in the evidence of the following
witnesses :—Mr. John H. Lees deposed that he was a land
surveyor, reading at Woodford, in Ewe:, and on the 4th of
July last accompanied Messrs. Manson and Elmy to the
house of defendant. Himself and Allinson went into the
house, leaving Elm,. outside. They went into the coffee-
room, where they had supper, and afterwards beer and
tigers. Beer was brought in a pewter measure. Mr. Allan-
son paid for the whole, including the charge for beer. After-
wards they went to the bar, and asked for gin to which the
defendant made some slight demur about the number of
people. He afterwards to.k them down epaulet, and supplied
them with gin, which he poured from ,stone bottle. When they
returned, they inquired what there was to pay for the liquor.
To which the defendant replied, "Oh, nothing." Mr. Al-
lanson inquired if Is. would de ; which sum was received.
Two females were with them, who also had some of the
liquor. They left the house soon after 2 o'clock on the Sun-
day morning.—Crose-examined by Mr. Hawkins: Became
acquainted with Allansoit about 12 months ago. Did not go
with him for the purpose of giving evidence here, but went
simply for amusement. When they inquired for beer at
supper the waiter said it was too late; but one of the girls
went to the landlord and Interceded with him for some beer,
which was brought. First heard of being required as a wit-
ness a fortnight ago.—Mr. Allinson called : Was with last
witness on the occasion referred to. He wished to have
some beer with his supper, but the waiter said it was too
late : upon which one of the girls went to the landlord and
said, " It's all right ; I know the gentlemen," when some
beer was brought, and set on the table. The girls had chops
and coffee. After supper went to the bar, and asked for
gin, when the defendant told them to follow him down •
passage, where the liquor was served. He afterwards went
to the bar, and gave Is. for the liquor and 6d. for cigars.—
Cross-examined: Before going Lees knew the object we had
in view. We went into the saloon, but were refused more
liquor or wine.—Re-examined: The regon we did not get the
wine was, that the defendant said it Auld not be worth his
while to open the room for five people at that hour in the
morning.—Mr. Elmy deposed to watching outside the hones),
and nothing was taken in during the officer's stay there. No
baer was taken in, but Mrs. Sampson solicited the passers-
by to enter the house.—Mr. Hawkins then addressed the
court for the defendant, and called Sophia Elliott and Mary
' Ann Dent, the two girls above alluded to, who swore pod -
tively that no money was received for the beer or liquor, but
that it was a free gift. and the whole of the money paid was
in discharge of the supper that had been supplied.—The
court, after a long consultation, said, as there were discre-
pancies in the evidence, and as thy had some doubts, they
should give the defendant the benefit of them, and dismiss
the information.
ADULTERATION OF SEML—A. Jelin, 4 beer-shop-keeper,
was charged with having in his stock, and mixing with hit
beer, a certain preparation of molasses, dc.—Mr. Hughes, a
supervisor of excise, said he examined the beer-cellar, where
he found a four gallon bottle of colouring matter. On the
head, also, of one of the casks he found a portion of the same
colouring matter, as if recently mixed with the beer. The
defendant at first denied all knowledge of it, but afterwards
admitted that he had used it for that purpose.—Mr. Phil-
lips, experimental chemist to the board, said he examined
samples of the colouring matter, which consisted of molasses
and salt, which would aid the process of adulteration by al-
lowing a large quantity of water to be mixed with the beer.
—Dr. Bateman suggested to the court that having found
out the real delinquent in this case (the manufacturer of the
article), perhaps the ends of justice might be met by
the imposition of a nominal penalty.—The court accordingly
acceded to the suggestion, and fined the defendant in the
penalty of 11. only.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Before P. C. Moylan, Esq., Judge.
DISPCTED MAREIAOE.—SLANET V. PAUL.—The plaintiff
in this case, residing in Carpenter.street, Delgrave-square,
summoned the defendant, Mr. Andrew Paul, the surgeon,
of Oreen•atreet, Park-lane, for one gainers, for three weeks
rent, and divers sundries supplied to Mn. Paul, the wife of
Mr. Paul. Mr. Bodkin, the barrister, who appeared fur the
defendant, said the answer to the case was simply that the
female wee not the wife of Mr. Paul. He would not dispute
the goods fpring supplied, but it would be for the plaintiff to
show that Mrs. Paul was the wife of the defendant.—Mr.
Charles Perks, parish clerk of St. Martin•in the Fields, tall
he was present at the marriage of Andrew Paul with Mary
Woodward on the 21st of November, 1833, and produced a
copy of the register. Ile did not know them before
the marriage.—Mr. William Neale knew both Mr.
and Mrs. Paul, and was in the habit of meeting
them when they lived in Doughty-street. She acted
there as wife by ■fitting at the head of the table. He
had never seen her in Green-street, Park-lane, but had seen
her in Carpenter.str,et. Mr. Paul was living in Green-
street of the time he saw Mrs. Pau! in Carpenter-street.—

Mr. M. Herring: Knew Mrs, Paul, and was well aware
that she bail hccn for mine time in great discrete. This was
the plaintiff's case.—Mr. Bodkin apprehended there was no
case at all.—The learned judge mid the plaintiff's solicitor
could (amine the defendant if he thought proper.—Mr.
Stothard, plaintiff's attorney, said he would hear the defence
before he did that, as he contended the law gave him tho
power to examine the defendant at any time.—Mr. Bodkin

said if he left the ease where he had he should plaits
a nossait. The learned gentlemen at some length maid he
was aware that it was immaterial whether s man was Married
to a woman or not, if he allowed her to act as his vent sad
was thing with her. But here was a woman living apart
from her husband, sad having no authority whatever from
him to obtain credit. The law was so clear upon the point,
that he (the learned counsel) would but briefly allude to
some cues, and call upon thecourt to direct • nonsuit, The
learned gentleman quoted the ease of "Mumbery r. Leslie "
(Malcolm's Reports, p. 18), where Lord Chief Justice Ab-
bott directed a nonsuit where no evidence had been given of
the cause of separation: the cue of "Montague e. Rene-
' diet," where the wife was living with the husband, who sup-
plied her with means ; but although the articles supplied
were necessaries, the court held that there was no case, be-
cause there was no privity of contract on the part of the hus-
band. After quoting other eases, the learned gentleman
said, it might appear strange that he should appear to defend
en action for so paltry a sum ; but the (actives his client had
been ruined by the conduct of this woman, who represented
herself to be his wife. He had been dragged to nearly every
police court in the metropolis, and every endeavour made to
compel bim to support her. She ought to have been pro-
duced as a witness, and if that bad been done he (Mr. Bod-
kin) would bare proved, on the cross-easmination, that at
the time the marriage with Mr. Paul place she bad
another husband living. No cue had been made out, and
he must call upon the judge to normal' the plaintiff'.—Mr.
Stethard said he would examine the defendant —Mr. Bod-
kin said he was too late to do that ; having cloud his case
he could not reopen it. —The learned judge was of the same
opinion, and directed a nonsuit.