The Express.
London, England, 1861-01-21 00:00:00

THE EXPRE6B, MONDAY EVENING, JANUARY
.21, 1861.

The I.ppmxim.ite statement .1 M,srs. }fort shows—debts
7,189/. ; ditto secured, 8,452/. ; against which the meets
are- -1,2101. ; .litto secured, IVAN/.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—Jsio. 19.
Wore Mr. Commissioner Nichols.)

IN RE T. MEGGS.7ANOTHER ATTORNEY NTRECK OEF THY

ROLLH Or THE COUHT.

This insolvent, a builder at Hackney, was heard without
oppositioa and discharged. He produced several receipts
fel 161. 13a. paid to Mu. Fisher and Mr. Dyson, of No. 3,
Portsmouth.atreet. He said he believed Dyson was clerk
to Fisher.

r 7 eointaisnioner Nichols proceeded to detail certain
proceedings which had occurred iu this case. Mr. John
Raison was the attorney filing the petition, and it was at.
tested by him as having been signed iu Whitecross-etreet
Prison, but it was admitted to have been executed out of
prison. as also the r,tuiner. The insolvent had em-
ployed Mr. William Fisher, and hail paid sums
amounting to 161. Lis. Dyson had acted as his
clerk. These persons were accouutants, and Hopson
stated that Fisher had introduced cases to him, but
in this case he (Ramon) had not received one shilling.
He also stated in an affidavit that neither Fisher nor Dyson
had been his clerk. Those parties, however, had sworn in
affidavits that they had never acted as attorneys, but all
the had done had been as clerks to &mon. The attorney
had been changed to Messrs. Lewis, but no money had been
refunded. The insolvent hail been delayed sometime iu
prison.
The learned commissioner referred to the law on the
subject, and the importance of all courts to check the
system of persons acting in the name of attorneys. He
lied felt it to be his duty, only on Thursday,
to remove an attorney (Mr. James Appleyard) from further
practice in the court, andalso to prevent an accountant,
p (('ostello), from having aurthing to do with the court. It
was said that it wie. It eOllllllOO practice to use attorneys'
names, and all he could say ,m the subject was that, when.
ever any case was brought before the court, he would act in
the same manner as he intended to do in the present ease.
In his opinion it was the bounden duty of all courts to cheek
the ayetem, and to prevent attorneys from lending their
names. By the last Attorneys Aet (Zi Viet.) any person
acting as au attorney was guilty of a contempt, and liable
to be punished, and also liable to all action for a penalty
of not. to be recovered against him. It was necessary for the
sake of the profession am well u the public to visit thecaseswhen
they did occur to the extent al lowed by the law, vnth the view of
preventing other persons from acting in a similar manner.
In this case Fisher and Dyson had acted as attorney in the
matter, and were open to punishment as provided by the
law. An action could be brought against them in the
name of the Attorney-Gene& by the Law Incorporated
Society. His Hoopoe, after dwelling on the conduct of the
mattes in the case, and holding them up as a warning to
others, directed that in future no paper should be received
in the office or courts from Fisher or Dyson, and with
respect to Reason that he be struck off the tiles of the
court.

The orders went drawn up, and publicity was to be given
to the same.

THE POLICE COURTS.

WORBII I PSTREET.

Condi ne Erma, was charged with robbing her master,
Mr. Searle, a tradesman in the New North•road. Accused
had been in the service throe weeka, and since that time
moneys had been missed. On being taxed with the theft,
she confessed to stealing about MM., but it was a great deal
more. She had been recommended by a policeman named
Tattle, of the N division, who, singularly enough, was
the constable to whom she was given in charge, and who,
on taking her to the statroo•house, told the sergeant the
charge could not be established, or words to that effect, as
the promise of forgiveness was made by the mistress if the
girl confessed.
Mr. and Mrs. Searle positively denied this statement, and
said the policeman knew it to be untrue, sa he heard all the
conversaticn which passed.
The magistrate asked where the policeman Tattle was,
as there was no knowing how far be might La culpable.
The inspector said the facts having been brought under
the notice of the Police Commissioners, they had directed
Tattle to appear before them, but as he had not complied,
he had been &misted the force.
Prisoner was committed for three mouths to the House of
Correction.