The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-04 00:00:00

IN RE THE HON G. A. H. CHICHESTER.

This was a meeting for last examination and discharge.
The debts amounted to about £9,000; no assets.
Mr. G. F. Cook opposed for Messrs. Fuller and Co,
coachmakers, of Bath.

Mr, Sargood objected to Mr. Cook being heard, on the
ground that he did not bona fide represent Messrs. Fuller,
but Mrs. Chichester, who was in a cause between her and
the bankrupt in the Divorce Court.

His Honour held that Mr. Cook had a locus standi, as he
was instructed to tender a proof which had been admitted,
and his authority to opp3se must be assumed, as he stated
he had been instructed, notwithstanding the correspond-
ence between the bankrupt and Mr. A. Fuller, to come to
an arrangement. His Honour ultimately granted the dis-
charge.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

BOOTS AND HOUSEMAID-SAM WELLER AND HIS BEER-

KEW V. HEMMENS.

This was an action to recover gratuity and "beer
money," plaintiff being a boots and defendant a hotel
keeper. The plaintiff stated that ho entered defendant's
service as boots at no wages, but he was promised £1 at the
end of tht ee months.

His Honour—Well, what about the beer money ?
Plaintiff—lf I did not approve of the beer I was to have
Is. per week.
His Honour—And did not you approve of the beer?
Plaintiff—No, indeed, I could not drink it. (Laughter.)
When I left ho only gave me 10s.

Defendant said--I took this lad out of the Union, and I
promised him 10s. if he gave satisfaction for three months,
and 20s if he did so for six months. As to the beer it was
very good, and the guests drauk it. If the plaintiff refused
he was not to have any equivalent. He made J3s. per week
out of the feasts, and he left me in a very shabby manner.
Defendant called a witness who generatly corroborated
him as to the bargain.

Plaintiff—Do you think it is likely that I should go to
his place for fourteen weeks for 10s. Besides, I was to
have half what the househmaid got—(great laughter)—
and she got sixteenpence, and I only had fourpence. (Re-
newed laughter.) I only made 3s. and 4s. per week out of
the guests, and sometimes I did not get anything,
His Honour—l think it is very improper to make such
bargains with lads out of the workhouse, and it would be
better to pay a salary at once, but plaintiff is directly
contradicted, so I must nonsuit him.

Nonsuited.
THE MERCHANT AND HIS BUTLER.-IMPORTANT
DECISION.-FRANCIS V. COLESWORTH.

This was an action to recover damages sustained in con
sequence of defendant refusing to accept the services of
plaintiff.
Plaintiff stated that he had engaged with defendant (who
is a merchant of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate-street) to act as
butler at £4O per annum. Plaintiff tendered his services,
but they were refused.
Defendant stated that although plaintiff's references
were not altogether satisfactory he engaged him for a month
upon trial. Plaintiff was to come in upon a certain day,
but he did not arrive when defendant and his family retired
to rest. About 11 o'clock at night plaintiff alarmed the
house by knocking up the inmates. He was permitted to
remain, but in the morning defendant asked him what ex-
cuse he could offer for not coming in proper time, and he
said he was in the country. Thi4 not being satisfactory,
defendant refused to accept his services.
Plaintiff said that he could not get his clothes made soon
enough.

life Honour—l cannot help that; but I must hold that
plaintiff did not tender his services in a reasonable time,
and that defendant was not bound to accept them at 11
o'clock at night.
Plaintiff nonsuited.