The Sun.
London, England, 1856-08-28 00:00:00

BARKEZ T. ROSS.

The defendant in this aotion was described as a ship-
broker, and a portion had been served to a clerk who
bad since left. It was, however, shown that defendant
had previous claims of the same kind, and his Honour
said that would bind the defendant and a verdict.

:MrJRTANT QUESTION AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF

COUNTY COURTS UNDER JUDGMENT SUMMONS.-BROWN

AND ANOTHER V. BAWKILL.
This was a judgment summons issued to enforce a
previous judgment of the Clerkenwell County Court.
Mr. Buchanan, Basinghall•street, appeared for the
plaintiff, and stated that the judgment had been obtained
in the Clerkenwell County Court so far back as May,
1851, but the defendant had gone away, and it was only
recently that the plaintiff accidentally knew his present
address in the city, and took the present proceedings.
Mr. Bardeleau said that, on behalf of the defendant,
he had to take au objection to the jurisdiction of the court.
The judgment had been obtained in the Clerkenwell
County Court without the defendant having even been
served with a summons ; and he intended to apply for
a new ButcHnoPs.
Mr. Buchanan said that he could convince the Court
that there had been a good and sufficient legal service,
besides which, by the rules of the County Courts, notice
of the application for new trial must be made within 12
days after the verdict was given. In this case the plain-
tiff was nonsuited in the first instance, through the ab-
sence of some material witnesses, but he (Mr. Buchanan)
at the moment gave notice of his intention to commence
a fresh action, and the summon. was served as the pre-
vious one had been. It was therefore impossible that
the order of the Clerkenwell Court could be set aside,
and he (Mr. Buchanan) had to submit that his Honour
was bound to enforce the judgment of that court.
His Honour said circumstances sometimes altered
cases. The original judgment might have been given on
evidence which afterwards proved unsatisfactory.
Mr. Buchanan said that he abided by the general rule
of the court as to the time of giving notice. It was the
only thing which could guide the Court. By the rule
the plaintiff was out of time, and beyond all remedy
even from the Clerkenwell County Court, but as a mat-
ter of fact, he would prove by the defendant himself that
the proceedings had been strictly formal.
The defendant, on being examined, admitted the ser-
vice of the first summons, and that the second had been
served at the same place, but which was not his place
of residence.

His Honour—Did you pay for your lodgings there ?
Defendant—There was nothing stipulated precisely as
to that. I stayed there occasionally. I did not receive
the second summons, and since then I have been to
Calcutta and back twice.
By Mr. Buchanan—He knew that the summons had
been served on a little girl 6 or 7 years old.
Mr. Buchanan said that a child of that age in 1851
could net now remember the fact and beyond all ques-
tion defendant received the summons, or, at all events,
he had not left the kingdom.
The defendant said he left in January, 1852. He
left his abode in Hatton-garden after the summons, and
went to Lilcham Rectory, near Swaffham. He con-
sidered ho had a good defence to the action, as it was
on a disputed guarantee for clothes supplied to his
brother.

His Honour said that it was a case open to much
doubt. The court from which the original judgment
issued might have been misled, and might reverse its
own judgment, and in this case, whore the defendant
insisted that he had got a defence on the merits, it would
be hard to preclude him.
Mr. Bardeleau said his client would be quite prepared
to support his case.
Mr. Buchanan said that, as to the question of the
jurisdiction of the Court, he would leave his Honour
to refer to the 83d section of the act. As to the facts
they had been made out to the satisfaction of the Judge
of the Clerkenwell County Court ; but, nevertheless, if
defendant now chose to pay the money into court and
abide a new tria!, his (Mr. Buchanan's) clients, who were
highly respectable tradesmen at the West-end, would
consent.
The defendant declined.
His Honour said it was a remarkable case, and would
leave the case open without expressing an opinion on it,
that au application might be made to the Judge of the
County Court. • -

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A RESPECTABLE TRlO.—Thomas Wright, John Smith,
and Thomas Whitmore, were brought before Mr. Bing-
ham charged with attempting to pick the pockets of
several persons in Princes•street, Soho.
Police-constable 173 C stated that on the previous
afternoon he was on duty iu Princes-street, when his
attention was called to the three prisoners, whom he
knew to be the companions of thieves, and who were
following several well-dressed females from shop to shop.
He watched them, and saw them " sound" the pockets
of three ladies, but not meeting with any success they
left them, and proceeded after some gentlemen, whose
pockets they also tried, with the like success. Witness
then went up to them and told them he should take
them into custody for attempting to pick pockets. The
prisoners denied such to be the case, and said they were
highly respectable persons, and got their living by
hard labour. Witness knowing them to be suspected
thieves conveyed them to the station-house.
The prisoners severally denied the charge, and Wright
said if he was as big as the constable he would give that
individual a good " whopping" for his " imperant"
Mr. Bingham said he should cause further inquiries to
be made into the characters of the prisoners, and re•
mauded them till Monday for that purpose.