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

BARKEP. V. ROSS.

The defendant in this action was described as a ship-
broker, and a portion had been served to a clerk who
had 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.

3IPoRTANT QUESTION AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF

COUNTY COURTS UNDER JUDGMENT SUMMONS.-BROWN

AND ANOTHER V. BAS` SILL.
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 takeau 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 summons.

Mr. Buchanan said that be 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-
Bence of some material witnesses, but he (Mr. Buchanan)
at the moment gave notice of his intention to commence
a fresh action, and the summons was served as the pre-
vious one had been. It was therefore impossible that
the order of the Clerkenwell Court could he 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 bad been btrictly 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 ISSI
could not 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 he had a good defence to the action, as it was
on a disputed guarantee for clothes supplied to his
brother.

Hie Honour said that it was a case open to much
doubt. The co'irt from which the original judgment
issued might have been misled, and might reverse its
own judgment, and in this case, where 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 trial, 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 an application might be made to the Judge of the
County Court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.— ;This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A RESPECTABLE Tnio.—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 in 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.
Ile 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 packets. 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-
manded them till Monday for that purpose.

THAMES.
DARING ROBBERY BY A RETURNED CO NYlCT.—fain es
Grant alias Durrant wits: several other aliases, a man of
repulsive appearance, about 40 years of s ge, was charged
with stealing three new boots from the shop of Mr. G.
Hay, No. 181, Ratcliff Highway, and ar the folio wing'
daring circumstances :—The prisoner 'entered the prose-
cutor's shop and said he wanted to purchase a pair of
boots, and while Mrs. Hay turned mund to take son.ne
down from the pegs to which they were suspended the
prisoner leant over her shoulder and took three boots and
decamped. An alarm was immed' .ately given, and Mr.
Hay went in pursuit of the prise ,ner, who dropped the
boots on the pavement opposite a pawnbroker's shop,
and they were recovered. The prisoner was overtaken
and secured.
Inspector Weakford of the H division said the pri-
soner was the most notorioug bu rglar in London, and
had been transported.
The Prisoner—Yes ; and Igo t a free pardon after I
had been in prison three years n.nd three months, and I
have not been in custody at all ; since I came home, your

worship.
Inspector Weakford —Yes, yi 311 have ; I saw you in
custody at the Worship-street Court on a charge of
felony.
Another Officer—And he h a I )een convicted of felony
since he came home.
The Prisoner—No ; I tell yqc Ai I have been at home
four years, and bad a free part '►n before tickets of leave
came up. lam not a ticket•of-1 eavo man—none of that
sort.

Mr. Selfe observed, here va, ; a very clear case of
felony against the prisoner, and, he should remind him
that inquiries might be made c, yn cerning him.

-- -- ---
CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE EA ATE. aN COUNTIES LINE.—
Three candidates are mentio aed fQ r the chairmanship to
;ton on
be vacated by Mr. Wadding the 29th inst.—Mr.
cbairma ,
Norris, of Aldersgate-street ; Mr. Elward Ball, M.P. ;
and Mr. Wm. Maline, tf,e, n of the Railway
Reform Association.