The Sun.
London, England, 1864-08-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

SHERIFF'S COURT.
(Before S. Joyce, Eeq.)

FISHER Y. RAY-A SON SUED FOR A FATHER'S DEBT...-.

SINGULAR CASE.

This was an action to recover damages on the re-sale of
a phaeton.
Mr J. B. Sorrell, Of Mark-lane, appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr Buchanan, of Basinghall-street, for the de-
fendant.

Mr Sorrell having briefly opened the case, called Mr
Emery, clerk to Mr Stapleton, she auctioneer, who said
that his employer had a Stanhope phaeton for sale lest June.
It was sold to the defendant for £l3 13s. No deposit was
paid, as defendant was known and had had many previous
transactions. Notice was given to the defendant that as
he neglected to clear the goods they would be re-sold. On
July sth application was made by letter to defendant for
the money. The phaeton was re-sold by auction for £9.
Cross-examined—l do not see the defendant in court,
Mr Buchanan—You have sued the wrong man. We
never bought a phaeton of the plaintifi in our life.
Witness—The defendant is a coal merchant.
His Honour—And you have summoned a bookseller and
stationer.

Defendant—l am a bookseller. My father's name is
William and mine is John.
Mr Sorrell—l will call defendant.

Defendant—l live in the Rent-road. My father lives at
Belgrave-place, Pimlico. At one time he lived at the Old
Kent-road. Ho gave it up six
came to the late address he would be sent for my father
to 176. months ago. If anybody

Mr Sorrell urged that it would appear that when persons
came for the father, they would be sent to tho son for in-
formation.

His Honour—But you have got the wrong man.
Defendant---I showed the summons to my father. I tore
up the letters.
Mr Sorrell urged again that in the interests of the
anxious to learn how far the plaintiff would succeed against
- - - -
Pthlaeinfatitffhehre was entitled to go on with his case, as he was
father.

His Honour said that defendant was entitled to appear,
goo ds been taken.
or
mifrll3
Emery
—The
fathermighthive
iven
us the name of John
Ray.
lEs Honour said that was nothing to defendant, who
could not be bound by it.

Defendant (in answer to Mr Sorrell)--I received some
letters from plaintiff which I tore up.

Mr Euchanan submitted there Was no case against the
defendant,

A witness, for plaintiff—The name over defendant's door
is ,6 Ray and Co."
Mr Sorrell—Who is the Company, defendant ?

Dofendaut—l am.

Mr Sorrell—You will see, your honour, that the son
receives letters for his father, and his father calls there.
Perhaps your honour will alter the name in the summons.
We have been referred to 236, Old Kent-road, and when
we go there are told to go to the son at 176. Under these
circumstances the name ought to be altered.
Mr Buchanan—Under what rule ?

His Honour said that the fact of the defendant having
received the letters was nothing at all, and he ought to
allow his father to come to the house, and also receive letters
for him, but that would not warrant the Court in altering
the summons. Plaintiff had sued the wrong man, and the
Court could not alter the Christian name if even William
Ray was present.
Mr Sorrell—William Ray, the father, knew all about it
and ought to have been line.
His Honour—l must uonsuit you with costs.
Plaintiff nonsuited.

POLICE
.INTELLIGENCE—Tbis Day.

WESTMINSTER.

TUREITENING TO MuuDEß.—James Williams, a power-
ful athletic man, was brought up on a warrant, charged
with threatening to murder James Pickett, of 23, Market-
street, Westminster, and also his wife, from which they
both considered themselves in imminent danger.
James Pickett said that the defendant had occupied a
furnished apartment in his house. On Sunday he used the
most dreadful and violent threats to complainant and his
wife, and they ware both very much alarmed.
Mr Arnold—What made him threaten your wife
Complainant—He has made improper proposals to her,
and it is because she will not consent to them.

Mr Arnold—And why does he threaten yon ?
Complainant—He wants to get ma out of the way that ho
may havofmy wife, I suppose.
Sarah Pickett, the wife, said that on Sunday last she was
in her bed-room when defendant threatened to break open
the door and murder her with a knife. He afterwards
threatened her life with an axe, and said he would be hung
at Newgate for her. His threats were so violent on the fol-
lowing day that she was afraid to be in the house alone.

Defendant said she had left her real husband in Oxford-
shire, and had committed bigamy by coming up to London
and marrying her present husband.

Mr Arnold said that that was no reason why they should
be murdered, or why anybody should put them in great
bodily fear.
Complainant and his wife said that they were lawfully
married, and defendant's charge was unjust.
Defendant was ordered to find bail.