The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-30 00:00:00

tradesmen to another, wed the piseur replied thettluann.
dertaker he had liehemenWpiwyederes in mph, Mote of in- I
tosication ntiAlt,ltso conduct, and
=±l,Jore nothing more wkdd Yftt.Nm. The prisoner
i
to be in a state dl tureens anxiety, andinquired
lihetUtthe funeral could net take place en the following
day, to which he replied in the affirmative, if the grave had
born already taken, and the certificate obtained. Tn. funeral
(which the prisoner wished to hasten) took place in due
isenswe.—The prisoner was folly committed for trial.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—Atizozo ILLEGAL Ds-
TeNTION EY A PAWEBLOILBIL—Mr. Attersborosept, pawn-
broker, Oxford-street, was summoned for detaining a quan-
tity of plate, the property of General Sir G. Berkeley.—Mr.
Clarkson sod that in Nov., 1846, Gen. Sir G. Berkeley wu
appointed Commander of the Forces at the Cape of Good
Hope. He paand up his goods in 41 cues, one of which
contained some valuable family plate, and consigned them to
Mr. Silvester, an agent, for the purpose of his transmitting
the property to its place of destination. In October last year
Mr. Silthater became ember/wed, and he should show that
he broke open one of the cues, took out some candlesticks
and other articles of plate, and pawned them with Mr. Atten-
borough, the defendant. The transaction having become
known Lady Berkeley applied to Mr. Attenborough, and was
at once told that the articles in question were in his pomp
*ion. Mr. Attenbcreugh further said, that Mr. Silveste;
stated the property to belong to a client, and that under the
6 & 6 Vic. he wu justified in detaining it, as he had a lien on it.
(The learned counsel here read the clause in the act in ques-
tion,which had reference to certain privileges granted to agents
who were intrusted with goods.) He contended that this
was a cam, notwithstanding the act in question, in which
the magistrate had the power of giving the property back
again into Sir George Berkeley'. pew/idea, through the
agency of the Police Act, leaving Mr. Acwpborough to his
remedy by action against Sir George Berkeley. He made
his case out thus—that the goods had been stoles. Mr
Silveeter had broken bulk without leave, and had pawned
some of the articles, as he should show, ate time when Sir G.
Berkeley was in London, namely, on the 3rd Dec. last, when
the last pawning took place. When the property was pro-
duced he should be able to prove that the articles in ques-
tion were old family plate, bearing either the crest or the
arms of the Berkeley family. It the defence was rested
on the 6 & 6 Vic. he should beg the court to ask
what the character of agent meant. Mr. Silvester was an
agent, but not a mercantile agent ; and as he bad stated to
Mr. Attenborough that the property belonged to a client,
the question arose whether Mr. Attenborough was justified,
without sufficient inquiry in taking the goods into pledge.—
J. Norton said he was clerk, in November, 1846, to Mr. Sit-
uate:, agent, of Lower Thames-street. In November, 1841,
witness recollected about 40 packages coming to his em-
- from Sir G.- , Berkeley. By the direct

George ....
trio: wiffilara.e. the assistance of Mr. witness
I Ilme lles packages. They took out some of the
=a of
while, Kr. Silvester's written directions, witness
took on two dlrment occasions to Mr. Attenborough's, and
left with the writtin directions. Received duplicates from
Mr. Attenborough, together with 911., which he gave to Mr.
Silvester.—Cro,s, xamined Mr. Silvester had carried on
business as an agent for many years. His business was
to receive goods from merchants abroad and to forward
them to their places of dettinatiou.—Mr. Clarkson
said he had now shown enough to ask the court
to interfere; if it refused, Sir George would have no
remedy.—Mr. Petersdorff, for the defendant, said the juris-
diction of the court was limited, by the Metropolitan Police
Act, to property refused to be given up by either broker or
dealer, msaniog a dealer in marine stores. Now, Mr. Atten-
borough, in this transaction, was neither broker nor dealer.
He was in tke position of a lender of money on security,
and it was, therefore, incorrect to call the note he gave •
duplicate. The notes given by Mr. Attenborough were of
the nature of special contracts, and, to bring them
within the meaning of the act, it would be first se-
esemry to show that Mr. Attenborough Wetted them
to Mr. Silvester in the character of broker or dealer.
The matter involved many most intricate questions—the
queen as greeting pawnbrokers and as afiecting agents.
He had shown that Mr. Silvester was an agent, carrying
MI business for years, and nothing had been done to deprive
Mr. Silvester of the power of pledging property.—Mr.
Bingham here remarked that this was the point to which
hie attention would be mainly directed.—Mr. Petendorff
said if it could be shown that an agent could be divested of
his right over property as agent, then it would cause a doubt
to be thrown en title to property on all occasions, and no one
would be justified is making advances until he had made
inquiries. As to the question of felonious removal of the
property, that, he apprehended, Mr. Attenborough had
nothing to do with.—Mr. Bingham said the case involved as
many points of great nicety particularly with reference to
the construction of the 5 &,6 Vic., and other acts of parties
went, that he should take until next Monday to consider his
decision.