The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-08 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS DISS.OLVED.

S. Robinson and W. Lorking, Grafton-street, Soho,
coffee-house keepers—J. Watson, jun., and J. Watson,
Horsforth, Guisley, Yorkshire, tanners—R. Smith, J.
Smith, and C. H. Smith, Laurence Pountney-hill, City,
tea dealers (so far as regards J. Smith)—G. F. George
and J. Richardson, Victoria-road, Pimlico, upholsterers
—P. W. Byrne and T. Dixon, Bradford, ironmongers—
J. Godfrey and V. Godfrey, West Smithfield, cattle and
sheep salesmen—M. Yearsley and W. Briggs, Baker-
street, Portman-square, wine merchants—T. Nutall and
M. Harrop, Holehouse, Charlesworth, Derbyshire, waste
bleachers—R. Fletcher and B. Robson, Burnhope, Dur-
ham, quarrymen—J. Grayston and G. Erle, York, stock
and share brokers—J. W. Coward and J. R. Darsie,
Liverpool, commission agents—H. Lightbown, W. As-
pinall, sad D. Graham, Manchester, paper stainers (so far
as regards D. Graham)—W. Walter, sen., and W.Walter,
un., Kingston-upon-Thames, solicitors —W.Chamberlain,
F. J. Lilly, and W. H. Kerr, Worcester, porcelain ma-
nufacturersG. Grazebrook and C. I. Wragge, Stour-
bridge, Worcestershire, solicitors—C. S. Voules and C.
J. Last, New Windsor,BerkShire, solicitors—J. Steward
and R. U. Suow, Water-street, Arundel-street, Strand,
printers—D. J. Field and B. Molineaux, jun., Altrin-
cham, Bowdon, Cheshire, corn and flour factors—W.
Briggs, T. B. Thompson, and R. S. Briggs, Sunderland,
shipbrokers—W. Haigh and J. Gledhill, Honley, York-
shire, woollen manufacturers.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.

F. M'Callum and F. liCallum, Gardenstown and
Banff, fish-curers, to meet within the Gillander's Hotel,
Banff, Nov. 17 and Deo. 15, at twelve.
J. Chalmers, Dundee, spirit merchant, to meet within
the British Hotel, Dundee, Nov. 12 and Dec. 3, at one.
P. Thorns, Dundee, merchant, to meet within the Royal
Hotel, Dundee, Nov. 15 and Dec. 5, at one.
A. M'Arthur, Oban, hotel keeper, to meet within the
King's Arms Hotel, Oben, Nov. 12 and Dec. 6, at twelve.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 7.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before Mr
Justice CaasswELL and a Common Jury.)
MURPHY V. BURNETT.

In this ease furniture of the value of 321. 10.. bad
been seized by the Sheriff of Middlesex, under a writ
of fi. fa., and an interpleader issue was directed to try
the question of property.
Mr. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Powell, were the
plaintiff's counsel, and Mr. Sergeant Byles for the
defendant. .

In 1845 one Benjamin Burnett was convicted of a
felonious assault, and sentenced to be transported,
but, previous to his trial, he made an assignment of
his furniture in two houses in Spitalfields to his bro-
ther, the defendant. After his removal to the hulks
the brother, in consideration of the wife's giving him
a watch and silver snuff-box, gave her the furniture,
and, after keeping it for some months, she sold it, as
was deposed by herself, the plaintiff, and two other
witnesses, to the plaintiff for 321. 10s., which money
was at the time of sale paid down to her. The plain-
tiff then took possession of the houses and furniture,
and the woman continued to reside there as his house-
keeper for five years, when her husband obtained his
liberation, and claimed the furniture as his property.
The plaintiff alleging that he had bought and paid for
it, refused to give it up, upon which the returned
man brought a fictitious action against his brother,
the defendant, who suffered judgment by default and
levied the execution upon the plaintiff's goods as those
of the defendant, which gave rise to the present issue.
The plaintiff and his witnesses s wore that the sale
was on their part bond fide, but for the defence it was
contended that, considering the nature of the rela-
tions between the plaintiff and the woman, this was
improbable, and that if it were true, as the deed of
assignment was not produced, the jury should pre-
sume it was to the brother in trust for the wife only,
and if so that she had no right to sell the property.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL told the jury that if they
believed the defendant had not given the furniture to
the wife, but bad only permitted her to use it, or if
they believed the sale was not bona fide, their verdict
should be for the defendant; but, if they should find
that the defendant did give the woman the furniture,
there would remain the question whether it did not
thereby revest in the husband, and, if, it should be
necessary, he would reserve that point for further
consideration.

The jury retired for some time, and then said-
-" We think the furniture was given to the woman
for her use only, and we do not believe the sale was
bohii.fide."
His LORDSHIP then directed the verdict to be
entered for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 5.
(Sittings in Banco.)
PARROTT, ADMINISTRATOR V. ANDERSON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, as
assignees of a bankrupt named Love, for an excessive
distress.

Mr. HUMFEET moved for a rule calling on the de •
fendant to show cause why the nunsuit should not be
set aside and a verdict entered for the plaintiffs for
801. It appeared at the trial before Mr. Justice
Maule at the last Northampton Assizes, that the
bankrupt held a farm as tenant to a Mr. Anderson.
At Midsummer, 1850, 1461. was due for rent, and
Mr. Faux, who had been collecting Mr. Anderson's
rents, took a bill at four months, payable to himself,
for the rent. Mr. Faux did not inform Anderson of
the fact, but, treating the bill as payment, he remit-
ted the whole amount of rent to Anderson out of
his own money. He then deposited the bill with his
own bankers, but before the time it arrived at maturity
Love became bankrupt. Mr. Anderson thereupon dis-
trained not only for the quarter's rent which had become
due since the bill was given, but for a whole year's
rent next preceding the bankruptcy. The present
action was brought for the alleged excess. It was
now contended that the plaintiff having received the
full amount of his rent from his agent, Faux, was not
entitled to treat it as no payment and distrain. Faux
could not have recovered the money back again upon
the bill being dishonoured.
Mr. Baron PARKE—Perhaps it might have been
recovered back again as paid under a mistake. He
took the bill thinking it was a good one. If the land-
lord is entitled to distrain, then the tenant would have
to pay twice over, because be is liable to the holder of
the bill. The payment by Faux was a payment by
the tenant, since he had obtained the money upon the
security of the bill.
The CHIEF BARON—The tenant supposed he had
paid the rent through the bill; why then is he to
have the benefit of what has occurred between Faux
and Anderson, although the bill has been dishonoured ?
We must consult Mr. Justice Maule before granting
or refusing the rule.—Deferred accordingly.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
The LORD MAYOR, upon taking the chair yesterday,
stated that he had a few observations to make. Some
remarks which he had made a few months ago had eli-
cited the benevolent sympathy of many charitable indi-
vid to an extent far beyond his expectations on be-
half of the unfortunate workmen who were injured, and
the widows and families of those who were killed, by the
falling of a building in course of erection in Grace-
church-street, and, as his year of office had nearly ex-
pired, he would avail himself of that opportunity of pub-
licly acknowledging how highly he appreciated that
6701141127, premptly and efficiently manifested ise it had