The Express.
London, England, 1850-06-24 00:00:00

state ..et day, sod sold they would have the kens*, sad
skid the price. I told Ibis the pnee would be 2401, sod
gave bin a 'Wiwi for 200 i. ea lb. Keeley, asil I charmed
601. for the discount of the bill kr 6001. 1 bath the bones/
of say lag 11r. Kuelry is ay Ether-lo law. I have sat
brought the check beaus, I ea your wising. I owe so
ens a guises. I was etA grd 30 peon ago so take the
b•siefit of Its set fir 641., through the isetnethentality et
Mr. Beystus, ths swabs kr York. H I owed 60,0001. I
could pey it.
Mr.llomfroy said be could aot mist the claimfarther,
sad ocoosaSod to a rued Noises him.—Yeriiiet for the
plaintiff for 6001.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-SATviDAY.

8/TTIAOII AT NM PUTS ♦T WIIMMITTEIL—B1170•1
JOUTSCS What AMP t SPIC/AL JUST.

Loau Ours

WAIUIIII V. CAM BILL AID OTIMUI..--ALLZOID ILLZOAL

----- -
This was an action brought &Oast Sagunto Bad Cab-
bell, Baq , M.P., Mr. Lugs, as upholsterer, sad Mr. Randall,
the attorney of Mr. Cabbell, to mover eampeartiou in da-
mage* tor an &Skied ilkgai and exereir dktreee. There
wonders other actions brought by Mr. Warner against each
of the dekadants separately upon the same =attn.
From the opening statement of Mr. Hasafrey, and from
the (midair subsequently addeurd in the:part of tete plain-
tiff, it appeared that Mr. Cabbell was the landlord of a use
in Vere-strut, Onford-streer, which had formerly been
known by the SIMI of Ibbotrea's Hotel, but now known
as the Oriental Hotel. This his.. Mr. Cabbell kt
to a Mr. Bishop, who carried on the business of
a hotel keeper under the kat-named sign for • short
period. In the beginning of 1849 he owed his Willi mer-
chant, whose name was Young, upwards of 1,0001., and
was, kirks that, la persist, difikultit s. About July, in
the same ear, he won alleged to have assigned his liar of
the peonies., as well r his bairns and furniture, to Mr.
Weraer, who usterook, it was stated, to pay Kr. Bishop's
debts, ;ad also headed kiss over a sum of 4951.
Mr. Bishop earequatly became a bankrupt (Mr.
Teeing berg the petitioning creditor), and • man
was pat in posserra of the house by the emig-
✓es, but the business, however, was still ears ivd
on by WeiNT, who brought as action against the emigres,
but was not able to remove them, and they still retain pr.
session. Shortly after Mr. Werner entered upon the bust-
ers, Mr. Cabball distraked fur 4951. 13s. 4d. berg a
year's rest, kiss dedrtios for • rate. The plaint;ff resisted
this d suer on the ground that it was excessive, coatending
that he was entitled to deduct 12L 17a. 10.1. for property tax
and 1251 for one quarter's rant said to have been paid, sad
for which be showed Mr. Cabbeles receipt. The defendants,
however, poniard in theft right of dieters, hear the pre-
sent aria. Goods to the amount of bOOl. were seised, part
of which were nerved from the house, bat hod sot been
s Id, as an arrangement wastrels by which Yr. Cabbell was
paid his demand subject to the present action.
. - -

For the defence it was shown that the plaintiff had not
paid the property tax lentil the day the distress went in, and
that he did not apply to Ur. Cabbell to deduct that sum
from his claim, se the action wu brought the following
day. It was further short that although a receipt bad
been given by Mr. Cabbell for one quarter's rent,l
still that amount ought not to be dedreted from
hie claim against Mr. Bishop, as the eluting which
Mr. Bishop had given him for 1251, on being pro-
seated at Sir Claude Scott's, was dishonoured. It was turd
that Mr. Warner had no right to bring the present action,
Mr. Cabbell having recognised him as his tenant. The
assignment to the plaintiff. it appeared, had only bee. ace-
mud three days before Mr. Bishop became a bankrapt. It
was also contended that it was most likely that this mugs-
meat was a fraudulent one for the purpose of defrauding Mr.
Bishop's assignees and et diors, as Mr. Warner was a school-
master at Loughborough, and not well off before he
came to London to aadertake the humane. It wu
also rated that a person named Job was the real
plaintiff is the action and had supplied the money, that he
was a Mind of Mr. Bishop's and had advanced him consi-
derable sums at different titre, and had then, M order to
save himself, at the expense of the other creditors, procured
the plaintiff, who was the brother-in-law of his solicitor, to
be the nominal purchaser of the bear's, he (JoS) actually