The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-22 00:00:00

SHERIFFS' COURT.
Before Mr. Unler-ehe!iff Bombell.

BARER r. Sari INA N.—Thieaction was brought to recover
31, 14s. The plaintiff is the keeper of a chandler's-shop in
Series-place, Lincoln's-inn-fields; and the defendant is a Mr.
B. Skillman, who is now connected with a National Hansa,
Agency Office in the City. The evidence went to show that
the defendant, in the year 184.5, bad taken a Brat-Boor of
the plaintiff in Serle'rplace. The bill for goods, and a
balance of rent, was not paid when demanded and a dis-
tringas was made upon the defendant's good;, and after
that a notice of ejectment wu 'erred upon him on the ith
of October, but he remained iu poseession some time after
I that. For the defence it was endeavoured to reduce the
I plaintiff's demand below 40s. by arguing that the plaintiff
could not, by law, recover any rent for occupation, after
the expiration of the notice of ejectment. The Under-
Sheriff said this was a novel principle of law to him. The
jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount
claimed. _ _

KELLY V. BEELLOROVE.—Taz POST-OFFICE DIREC-
TOEY."—Tbis action was brought by Messrs. Kelly, the
proprietors and publishers of the Post-office Directory.
A nephew of the defendant had been engaged by the
plaintiff as a canvasser for the Directory, and was paid
salary and a commission of 20 per cent. on the number of
copies he sold. He had failed to account fully to the plain-
tiff for a quantity of books supplied to him on credit, and
the defendant was sued, he having become a guarantee for
his nephew. A set-off was pleaded but not defended, and
the jury found for the plaintiffs.

CITY SHERIFFS' COURT.-01.71ILDNALL.
Before Mr. Commissioner Bullock andands Common Jury.
PLANS V. STEWART AN)) ANOTHSR.—QCSATION 0? PART-
NSRSHIP.—This was en action brought by the plaintiff', a
brewer, residing at Gravesend, to recover of the defendannt,
Meson. Stewart and Pattison, the Reward and captain of the
" Railway" Gravesend steam-boat, the sum of 131. fie. 6d. for
ale and porter supplied on board that boat. The defendant
Stewart allowed judgment to go against him, thereby ad-
mitting that he was indebted to the plaintiff. Pattison, how-
ever, pleaded that he was not indebted. The goods were
supplied in 1843, and the question of partnership was sought
to be established. Pattison never paid for the articles he
obtained from the steward, and on one occasion rubbed out
what was put down to him. He was also heard to make
the remark, "that it was the best week they had had sure
the boat had been running." And on another occasion,
when he and the steward were shoring money, and a book
war produced, he said, "We don't want a book, we
don't want any one to know our business." When the
steward left, a divisbn of the coffee-cups, &c., took place
between them, and they towed up who should have first
choice.—Mr. Ryland contended that the plaintiff might as
well have selected one of the jury as a partner as Mr. Pat-
tison. It was a mere alter-thought on the part of the plain-
tiff, who, finding that Stewart was in insolvent circumstances
had attempted to drag Mr. Pattison into a sort of partner-
chip.—The learned commiasioner said itwu net necessary for
the world at large to know that one person was in partner-
ship with another; but if a person entered into partnership
with another in the mod simple thing, and it was not gene-
rally known, he would still be liable for debts that were in-
curred. It was, however, for the jury to say, from the evi-
dence, whether a partnership did exist between Stewart and
Pattison at the time these goods were supplied. After some
consideration the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for
the full amount claimed,
Before Mr. ComaiMilemer Bullock
Titi LAW OP CoNTHACT.—TMS MARCH OF CIVILISATION.
—MASTS:IMAM V. BEALB.—This wan an action brought to
recover the sum of ten guineas, for work and labour done.
The defendant pleaded never indebted. The plaintiff is an
auctioneer, and the defendant had two cottages, which he
wanted to dispose ot. The plaintiff was applied to to sell
them, and if the sum of 5501, was obtained, he was to be
paid the usual communion. Accordingly, the plaintiff bad
150 bills circulated, and several offers were made, but none
of them came up to the sum fixed upon by the defendant,
who ultimately sold the property himself for a larger sum.
The plaintiff, accordingly, made no claim for per oentage,
but for his services. The defendant refused to pay.—
Mr. Ryland, on the part of the defendant, contended that
the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, inasmuch as he had
not performed what he had undertaken to do, to sell the cot-
tages at the required sum which was not their vain*. The
learned counsel remarked upon having a bill sticker as a
witness. Mr. Parry, in reply, considered that the remarks
of his learned friend on the bill-sticker were uncalled-for, as
he considered a sticker of bills to be as much a profusion as
that of a barrister, both followed their avocation for money,
both required talent and ability to be successful. The jury
found a verdict for the defendant.