The Express.
London, England, 1866-05-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
wow at Nid Prins in Middlesex.—(l3efore Mr. Justice
Willes and a Common Jury.)
DEACON V. STEEL.
oe plaintiff in this case kept a general shop at Ealing,
oil the defendant was a market gardener and florist at
colidar-hill in that neighbourhood. The action was to
"over damages for the bite of a dog.
Iff. Day appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. M. Cham-
bem, mad Mr. Lewes for the defendant.
The plaintiff's case was that on the 13th of May, 1864,
hi drove up to the defendant's place for the purpose of
ideimg some radishes. He walked from the front gate to
tts house, and while talking to the defendant a spaniel
bite' belonging to him bit the plaintiff very severely in
*calf of the leg. The plaintiff, by order of his doctor,
iss kept in bed for five week., and for several weeks after
am time he was only able to get about with difficulty.
esasequence of the bite he had been put to an expense of
jel, and he claimed to recover this sum in addition to
dosimeter the pain and personal injuries which hehad nut-
dyed. To entitle the plaintiff to recover he was bound to
,por that the dog was accustomed tobite people, and that the
mtendant knew of this; but although the plaintiff's
mewl made statements to this effect the witnesses called
did not prove them. As a last resource the defendant
himself was called, but he stated that he never knew
die dog to bite except on this occasion.
Under these circumstances the plaintiff was nonsnited.

COIJRT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judgo Ordinary.)
RADFORD F. RADFORD.
Dr. Bpinks for the petitioner ; no appearance for the
respondent, who was a farmer at Sutton-on-the-Hill, near
Derby. The parties wen married in 1849. Some years
after the marriage the respondent seems to have con-
ceived an aversion towards his wife, and frequently beat
ber violently, and this more especially after she sod.
destiny discovered, from • letter, that he was carrying on
an adulterous intercourse with a woman named Chamber-
lain, living in Manchester. In NM he left his wife, and
ins afterwards found living with Chamberlain at Notting-
ham and elsewhere.
Decree nisi, with coats.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IA RI W. H. BAINBEIGGE.
The bankrupt was described as a gentleman, of Wolver-
ha-house? Winchester. This was an adjmned sitting for
*lamination and disoharge. was
.ties are large-
-10,131/.; property held as security, 10,0651.
Brougb, for the assignees was willing that the
bankrupt should pass, as no gooa would result from a
further adjournment.
Mr. Reed, for Mr. Curling, a creditor, complained that
the account' were insufficient, as they contained no state-
ment relating to a partnership which it was suggested
misted between the bankrupt and other persons in
various race-horses. He had been interested jointly with
llemmingway, Mr. Padwick, Mr. Tyrie (lately bank-
-1101, and Captain Boyle (lately bankrupt), in the training
sad ownership of race-horses.
Mr. Linklater, on behalf of the bankrupt, contended
that there was no legal partnership with those persons ; the
bankrupt had been merely jointly interested with them in
certain transactions.
His Honour said it was desirable that the joint and
separate transactions should be distinctly stated, and
directed an adjournment for additional accounts.
Er BE OILOCBIZ, ALLiS YALCONIB.—AYYLICATION YOB
- .

RILLS&
The bankrupt in this cams wag described as Edmund
O'Rourke, otherwise called or known by the
name of' Edward Falconer, of 41, Acacia-road,
St. John's-wood, and of the Theatre Royal,
Leurydane, theatrical manager, comedian, and
author, for some time in partnership with Frederick
Belsir Chatterton, as theatrical manager, now a prisoner for
debt inWhitecross.street prison. Theadjudicationwas made
onthe 26th April on the bankrupt's ovnipetition. He ascribes
his failure to losses sustained in the management of Drury
Lane Theatre and disputes with his late partner, Mr. F.
B. Chatterton. A hit of creditors, 90 in number,
is appended to the petition, and there are
some heavy amounts (not cast up) apparently
reaching to between 5,0001. and 8,0001. The largest cre-
ditors are—Mr. .T. Baker, gentleman, of Craven-street,
Strand, LIM/. ; Mr. L. Solomon, fruiterer, Covent-garden
Market, 634/. ' • Messrs. Hallett, Ommanney and Co.,
bankers, Great George-street, 5001. ; and Messrs. Chat-
terton and Stride, box.office agents, Bow-street, 4041. In a
note appended to the list of creditors the bankrupt states
that several of the debts in the list are due on account of
the theatre ; but, having been in custody for upwards of
two months, he had been unable to examine the accounts
sent in against the theatre. There are five detainers
against the bankrupt, the principal one in amount being
for the debt of Mr. Solomon.
Mr. Bagley supported the application for release, and
stated that the bankrupt had been in prison since the 27th
of February. Though there were floe detainers against
him, three were by the same creditor, Daniel Pratt.
Mr. G. Lewis!. who opposed the application, took a pre-
liminary objection that the bankrupt had not filed a sepa-
rate statement of his own debts.
His Honour did not think he could entertain the objec-
tion at that stage.
Mr. Bagley stated that the bankrupt had been arrested
on judgments obtained against him for joint debts. There
were proceedings in chancery going on between the
partners ; and it was most essential for the protection of
property that the bankrupt should have his release. The lease
of Dewy Lane Theatre was about to be renewed ; and
unless Mr. Falconer was in a position to apply for it
his creditors would lose the benefit of so much property.
It could not be considered for a moment that the creditors
would derive any advantage from keeping Mr. Falconer
in custody, where he had already been upwards of two
months.
The Commissioner—How comes he to have been there so
lone•
Mr Bagley said that the registrar had not felt at
liberty to discharge Wm, he not being a inkier.
His Honour said that, unless he was prepared altogether
to abrogate the rule which deferred those applications
till after the choice of assignees, he could not
make an exception in this case, where the debts
were of a very large amount. The creditors were
ninety in number ; and until those ninety creditors were
represented by assiznees he certainly should not entertain
the application. It might be renewed within a reasonable
time after the choice. The bankrupt was then taken back
to priaen.