The Express.
London, England, 1861-05-13 00:00:00

M'/APOISTAIf p9I7N.TY 00trFri.,

I I gas— digs ;;;in'44f tar iis; p ;MIL
Wnellenneetz, St. Martlns.lane.—Tuesdny, My 14; Wednes-
day. 16 . Thur,Ass, 1.1. Friday. 17.
Manning' 544 Slant hnne.road.—Monday, May 13.
BROlnstui, Whitehead's. gruve.—Wadnesday May 13.
CLICAZZAWILL, nuncanterrson—Tuuslay, May 14. Wednes-
day, 15 . Friday, 17.
SHOILKINTCH, Oldwireetroad.—Tuewlay, May 14; Thursday, 16.
Bun. Valrelold-rusd.—Yrklay, May 17.
WiurncHAPSL., Great Proseottestreet.—Tuesday, Mayl4; Thurs-
day, 16 ; Prlday, It
nourThrant, Swan-street, Borough. 'nanny, May 14
Thursday, 16 . Friday, 17.
Camberwell liewyoad.—Tuemlay, May 14; Wed-
"Ws/. 16.
WANIXIMORTII, South-street —Thursday, May 16.
en-e ole Lunen, Guileiltall.bulldlugs.—Tuesday, May 14.
Friday, 17.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-MAY 11.

Sittings at Nisi Moe, after Term, at Westminster.--(Before
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn sad Common Juries.)

••' A MAN IA roAssastos."'

This was an action for work and labour, to which the de-
foodant pleaded never indebted, except as to 151.
Mr. Collier and Mr. Wottllet appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Joyce for the defendant.
From the opening statement of counsel it appeared that
the plaintiff, an elderly man, had formerly been in trade,
but having become reduced in circumstances be latterly had
gained his living by taking possession of goods and premises
under the direction of sheriff's officers. In July, 1859, an
execution was issued against the goals of a Mr. Hodgson, a
patent agent, residing at Blandford Lodge, St. JohifeWood,
and the plaintiff was put in possession. Mr. Farber, the
defendant, who in an auctioneer carrying on business in
S'arwick-court, Gray's lon, advanced money to Hodgson
upon a bill of sale, for the purpose of paying off the execu-
tion, and employed the platntiff to continue au possession on
his behalf until he received further directions. The
plaintiff remained on the premises fur eighteen months.,
and the usual charge of a man in possession was sa. • day if
ho kept himself, and 3e. 6d. if he received his board free of
' expense. At the expiration of the eighteen mooths some
arrangement was come to between the defendant and
Hudgeoe, and the plaintiff was requested to withdraw, but
when he asked for the payrrent of has claim, the defendant
denied his liability, anal told hint to look to Hodgson. The
plaintiff was boarded in the house, and received, at different
times, small sums front Hodgsoo, amounting altogether to
22/. Se., which, deducted from his entire claim,--100/.
13e. 6d.—lilt a sum of 781. 12a. ad., the amount for which
the action was brought.
The plaintiff said that on the 24th of February last, after
he had been in the house for eighteen months, he wee intro-
' deceit iu the drawimproom to Mr. Ferber, who said, " You
have been here so long that you must almosti consider your-
self one of the family." (Laughter.) Mr. Furber then
asked him, " What is your money now" and he replied,
" I should say noire than 801." Mr. Farber said, 'lb
you ever think of getting the money?' and the plaintiff
said, " You have placed me here, and I shall look to yon
for the money." Next morning he received a letter from
Mr. Furber, saying he bad made a dishonest attempt to fix
responsibility upon him, and requesting him to quit the we-
eders imme6ately.
Qom-examined—l never agreed to look to Mr. Hodgson
for payment. I might have told Mr. Farber that 1 would
Dot leave until I was turned out by a policeman. He was
very hot and I might have got warm. (Laughter.) When
I was in the house I was fatten unwell and had an opens.
lion performed, but I wait waited upon by my daughter and
not by Mr. Hodgeon's servants.
On the part of the defence it was contended that •
specific agreement was come to between the plaintiff and
the defendant, that after the 12th of December, 1859, the
plaintiff should look to Mr. Hodgson far payment, and the
defendant expressed has medium to pay the 161. which was
due up to that date. The defendant mkt that be advanced
Mr. Hodgson SM. upon his furniture, which at the time
was worth about 4001., and that he was to
receive 20 per cent. interest. The defendant's clerk
proved that the custom of the trade was that the owner of
the goods should pay the man in possession • and Mr.
Hodgson, who was also called, said that on the 13th or 14th
of December he told the plaintiff that he would pay him a
guinea a weak, but on crues-examination be admitted that
he had not carried out the arrangement, as he could not
conveniently pay the money and as the plaintiff had never
slaked him for payntent in full.
The jury after being locked up some time returned •
verdict for the plaintiff ; damages, 781. ed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-MAY 11.

Sitiiage is Baaco—(Before Jaatioes Williams, Willis,
Byles, and Keating.)
avaan& P. THIL ORZAT SHIP COMUNY.—TiIIIfOIATIOI OP
THE LITIOLTIOIL

The court to-day eat for the purpose of disposing of
awn in the special paper, in which the above•mentioned
seas was entered.

Mr. W. Williams, however, said that the litigation was at
length at an end, and their lordships would therefore not
be allied on for any further interference.
Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex—(Before Lord Chief
Justice &kande Common Jury.)
WALLTIIOIII GOINIT.—LIABILITIEI or ISHIRI/711.

This was an action against the High Sheriff of Surrey to
recover damages in consequence of one of his officers having
released • person named Knights from custody after he had
anithed bias at the suit of the plaintiff for 53f.
It appeared that Knights was arrested near Loodos.
bridge, and that on his way to the lock-up he produced a
" protection" from the Insolvent Court, and the officer,
after having examined the document mad taken • copy,
liberated him. The plaintiff now claimed damages for the
leas which lie had suffered in consequence of the escape of
Knight, ; who was examined as a witness, and said that be
had at thetimeof the arrests share in a mine which he should
have bees obliged to raise mosey on to get out of prison
by paying the plaintiff. On the other hand it
that a
his schedule in the Insolvent Court slowed that
l•
owed about 1,0001., and had, when it was filed, no assets,
sad it also appeared that a short time ago a coat which he
wore is the witness-box had been in pawn for a few
shillings.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for one shilling ;
bat scene (mallow of law were reserved for the court.
especially the questing whether the protection was opera-
tive in referents to the *Latin debt.