The Express.
London, England, 1851-08-15 00:00:00

Rail) fntelltaence.

SHERIFFS' COURT—YE:=TERDAT.
11. vas 71. Cauca-hour or Mien, Rio a.
PILDCLAIIATION OF OUTLAW:A. • I
At the •itting of Oar court yesterlay morning the
Mg persons were e tiled upon to surrender to the cuatcsly of '
Me sheriff, OT be severally outlawed:—Dunean Davidson
Alms, at the suit of Thomas Spencer; Frederick William
Frytr, at the suit of Frederick Beasley ; Watkin William
Martin, at the suit of Edward Barnard ; G. F. Sydenham,
at the Suit of Morris Mayers; Barnard Brocas,
at the suit
of F.. Edwards ; W. Wilcox Sleigh, at the suit of D. Davies
and another; Sin:Then Temple, at the suit of J. 1). Vandir-
pant ;illeuben Terrewest, at the suit of Carlo Butler Cony ;
Hector Harvest, at the suit of J. L. Louisa Cathcart; John
Zdasonds, at the suit of Francis Brown ; Barnard Gregory,
at the suit of Isabella Ann Meares; H. J. Noyes, at tie suit
of Lewis Harris • W. S. l'orter, at the suit of J.H.
Taylor ; J. I'. M"Queca, at the suit of .1. Joel ; Winfield
Attenborough, at the suit of R. K. Lane ; William Wood-
house, at the suit of J. King ; If. W. Marriott, at the suit
of F. A. Davits ; J. 11. Colletti, at the snit of John Gordan
and another ; Benjamin Mann, at the suit of Francis Cart-
wright ; W. A. Wearing, at thesuit of Thomas Young and
another ; and the lion. Browalow Cecil, commonly called
Lord Bruwalow Cied, at toe suit of George Samuel Ford.
BARRI It AND ANOTHER r. KENNETT.
The plaintiffs in this case, the newspaper and advertise-
ment agents, sought to recover the sum of 511.95. Sd. for
advertisements iewrted by them, by: direction of the de-
fendant, in the in trupolitan and provincial papers. The
advertisement.. in question had reference to Kennett's
Parcel M....patch:* Judgment had been suffered by default,
and this was an inquiry to assess the damages. There was
no defence, an I the jury found for the plaintiffs for the full
amount.

BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT.—YESTEIIDAT
Rama, D. O. Until, Len.
Wr.1.f4)1 r. BeLIo.NO.—A NOVEL HORsr. CAVE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, described as
" huntsmen and whipper-in to a noble earl, as likewise car-
rying on the busine.s of livery-stable keeper at Birming-
ham," .gaited the defendant, a LonflOu cab proprietor, to
recover the sum of ltd. 15s. for the use of and damage
done to • bora- while in his keeping. The proceedings, as
will be wen by floe facts described, were of a novel and
curious character. Mr. May, solicitor, attended on behalf
of the plaintiff; and Mr. Long fur defendant.
From plaintiffs statemmt, it appeared that he resided at
Birmingham, where, in the year lfelfi, he purchased
from a Mr. Wakley, solicitor to the fluke of Marl-
borough, a horse, previously used by his grace as
a hunter, for 301. lOs. The duke, when he bought
it having given fur it, as he was informed, 150 guineas.
In October, 11119, the horse was stolen from his stalilss the
very day after he had refused W. for it. He saw no more
of it till July, 1100, when became to town a* a witness in a
not in one of the Courts of Westminster,and while strolling
about recognised his lest horse standing in a four-wheeled
cab of the defendant's on a hackney earn igo rank. lie
immediately sought the defendant, to whom he made known
Li. toe and discovery, when the latter told hint that he
Isiught it of Mr. Ilall, veterinary surgeon, Theohuld's-road,
which he .ecertaiued to be true. He, however, wishing
the restoration of his horse, bail the whole affair invi di-
gated by a police magistrate, who, being sati.ficel that he
was the own r, ordered it to he given up to him by the de-
fendant, that person immediately afterwards offering him
10f. for it bask again, whieli offer he would not incept.
On getting the hors. home he found that, by use and work,
it had been since he lead hail it last materially injured and
deteriorated in value be lameneoe, and he eventually sold it
for hi. He now sued the defendant as fur the hire of the
animal at res. a week for the nine months he bad worked
it, the other part of the claim being for the damage done
to the hone.
In reply, it was folly proved by the defendant that he
purchased the horse of Mr. 11,11 for loe. and
Mr. 11.11, when called. said be bought the same animal
jest before At Ibsen 's Repository, at ii public auebou of
horses which takes flare weekly.
After the arguments by the solicitors on eitle r side as to
the possibility and impossibility of by law maintaiiiing such
an action,
Ili, Honour observed that moo case hail been made out to
make the defendant liable to the claim noir brought against
him, unit,, he must say, very mows-I rirruM•tonrur. The
plaintiff had hail the rase once dended in his favour by
111Mari•trati , who ordered the hone to he riven up, inetead
of which he should have brought au action in trover fur the
value of the horse when be list it. There wee no reason
to suppose that the defendant had purehreel the horse
heists at all OMIT(' th.lt it had been stolen hut considering
at • bona fide tr.,o,rtlon.
Judgment for defendant.