The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-31 00:00:00

kaw

SECONDARIES' COUR ESTER DA Y.
si tom. ya SICMDAILT

PAINSON V. CUOVESI.--JVZIWICTION. OF TLs coLRT.
This c as en action to recover the s'am of 121. 17s. un a Lill
of t achanp.
Mr. J. R. Chidley, Oreanna-street, appeared for the
plaintiff, and proved the acceptance, &c., and the only ob-
i action token was, that the action ought to have been
brou4ht in the County Court.
Mr. Chidley, in reply, contended that there was a concur-
rent jurisdiction, and that the plaintiff could maintain his
action in the superior court.
The learned Secondary held to that effect, and refused
to grant any certificate to deprive plaintiff of cost, which
would only cause delay, and in this cue it would appear to
defeat justice.
Mr. Chidley said re was perfectly open to discuss the
quo stion before one of the learned judges at Chambers, but
it appeared to him that the delencant must show very
strong grounds before the plaintiff would be deprived of
costs when circumstances had driven him to the superior
court—indeed, in many instances, litigation in the county
courts led to very grt at ezpensirs.
A verdict wss given for the plaintiff, the certificate to
deprive the plaintiff of costs being refused.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YESTERDAY.
The sittings of the court were resumed to day after the
holidays.

SIMMS WA. 0111111111/1510,1111 rat:
IN THE NATTER OP Irtwas THOMAS

VENT CIARILII.
This was an application to reduce an allowanoe to cre-
ditors. The insolvent held a situation of 6001. • year in the
money order department of the Post-office, and when he
took the benefit of the act be set aside 2501. • 3ear for his
creditors, which had been paid until lately. It appeared
that from 6001. a year the insolvent had been reduced to
2401., and it was impossible to continue his payments as
heretofore. A rule had been served on his creditors to
show cause why the allowance should not be reduced for
the reason stated in his affidavit.
Mr. Cooke applied to make the rule absolute, and cre-
ditors showed cause.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips, after a lengthened discussion
on the ease, reduced the allowance to 501. a year for the
creditors. It was obvious, that to continue the sum appor-
tioned would be to bring the insolvent again before the
court.
The rule was made absolute to reduce the allowance to
SOL a year.

inns In. conionona 111.0111%
IN la SWITUZJI .10111 PH CHANCEI

111:1T.

This insolvent, an envelope maker, in Molyneux.street,
Uryanston.iquare, spelled to be discharged from prison.
Mr. Cooke opposed on the part et • Mr. Alexander
Francis Campbell, and Mr. Reed for a Mr. Curley. Mr.
Nichols supported.
In February, 1852, the insolvent filed a bill in the Court
of Chancery against Lord Staff ird and others, as trustees
of the will of • gentleman named Gosling. His (insol-
vent's) mother was daughter of Mr. Gosling, end Mrs.
Campbell, the mother of the opposing creditor, wasanother
daughter.
The,insolvent slid Mr. Corley, who was a retired barris-
ter, advised him to file the big, and alleged that Mr.
Alusnder Francis Campbell was only an adopted son of
Mrs Campbell. Mr. Curley had been married to Mrs.
Campbell at the Registrar's Office in Marylebone about six
months before she died, and when she was more than 80
years of age. Mr. Corley was about 60. After the biU
in Chancery had been filed some time it was dismissed. He
said he knew Mrs. Campbell was • Roman catholic, and
he could not account for her marriage at a registrar's office.
After Mr. Corley had hiked him into his present condition
Ity reason of the Chancery suit, he told him that he had
acknowledged Mr.CampLell to be her son in the Prerogative
Court. Mr. Campbell hau found his certificate of baptism
at Colchester. The insolvent said Mr. Corley had advanced
101 on account of the proceedings in Chancery, and when
ke foetid he (insolvent) was involved on account of the suit
la Char eery, he advised him to get " whitewashed."
Mr. Reed opposed for Mr. Corley, who was not in attend-
ant" end eudesroured to show that the insolvent had got
kesseelf friendly arrested.
He denied that such was the ease.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy was not disposed to entertain
au opposition on the part of Mr. Corley, who had not
thought proper to attend.
Before the opposition on the part of Mr. Corley was com-
menced, Mr. Otoke said that notwithstanding the great ex-
pense the gentleman for whom he appeared bad been put
to, he was not disposed to press against the insolvent, as it
was believed he had been led into it by Mr. Corley, respect-
ing whom the insolvent bad made • statement in his sche-
dule, and it might have been expected that he would have
made his appearance in court.
Mr Reed asked fur an adjournment till Mr. Corley re-
turned from the country, and he attempted to show that
the description was defective. It appeared that for seven
months after the bill is Chancery was dismissed, the insol-
vent, for fear of being attached, having a dread of • prison,
lived in a back kitchen near his own house, and this was
such a residence, it was mounded, as it was incumbent on
him to describe in his schedule.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy refused to adjourn eke case on
such a ground, and designated the opposition on the part
of Mr. Corley as a vary ungracious one.
His Honour pronounced the immediate discharge of the
insolvent from prison.