The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

• SHERIFF'S COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
ADVERTISING FOR A PARTNER.—SHOTL ANDER V.
SERIN GER.
This was a claim of £5 17s. 6d. for endeavouring to get
defendant a partner with £3,000, plaintiff being an ac•
countant.
Plaintiff stated that in the latter part of last year de-
fendant mentioned that he wished to get a partner with
£3,000, and, after some consultation, an advertisement was
inserted in the Times. Plaintiff consulted with several per-
sons, solicitors and others, and had not defendant been out
of town, the business would have been brought to a satis-
factory termination. Plaintiff had received ss. for postage's-
Mr. Buchanan, for defendant, cross-examined plaintiff at
some length, and handed up an account in which plaintiff
had charged £1 7s. 6d.
Plaintiff—That was for cabs.
His Honour—Why, here are many items such as consult-
ing Mr. Clare, solicitor—that cannot be a cab. Here are
letters. They are not cabs. What was the advertisement?
Plaintiff—Defendant wanted a partner, a sleeping part-
ner, with money.
His Honour—What trade does defendant carry on ?
Plaintiff—He is in the East India trade, and has an
office in Bury-street, St. Mary. axe.
Defendant said he only engaged plaintiff to put an ad-
vertisement in the Times, and paid plaintiff 3s. for doing ao•
Plaintiff then answered a letter and was paid his charge, 2s.
Plaintiff—Why, he didn't like to show in the business,
and asked me to receive the parties answering the advertise-
ment at my own house.
His Honour did not think plaintiff could be expected to
obtain a £3,000 partner for ss.
Mr. Buchanan—Your honour will remember that defen-
dant positively swears he paid plaintiff all that he
demanded.
His Honour was only surprised that any one should be
foolish enough to answer such advertisements, and as it was
a case of oath against oath he would nonsuit the plaintiff.

RAMSGATE COUNTY COURT.
(Before Mr. Heath.)
SINGULAR CASE OF LANDLORD AND TENANT.-DIVESON

V. TENANT.

Plaintiff is a tobacconist, of Margate, and defendant is a
gentleman residing in the Marine-parade.
The action was brought to recover £3 3s. for two months'
rent, and one week in lieu of notice.
Mr. Buchanan, of Basinghall-street, London, for the de-
fendant, cont ended that his client had never had possession.
—had never accepted the key, and had not signed ally-
thing. Under the statute of frauds defendant was not
liable; nor did the Bth and 9th Vic. mend plaintiff's.oase.
For the plaintiff it was argued that a parole lease could
be proved when the term did not exceed one year, but, after
a long argument, in which Mr, Buchanan and plaintiff's
attorney quoted a long string of cases, and took up many
points, his Honour nonsuited the plaintiff with costs.

POLICE IN TELLIGENCE.—( This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

PICKING POCKETS AT HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE.--
Henry Stephens, a young man, and who on the previous
night gave the name of John Roberts, was charged before
Mr. Beadon with picking pockets at her Majesty's Theatre
on the previous evening.
Edward Langley, 100 A, said that about half-past seven
the previous evening he was in plain clothes at the gallery
entrance of her Majesty's Theatre in the Haymarket. A
great crowd of persons was round the door waiting admis-
sion, and he noticed the prisoner, who had a coat over his
arm, go close behind several gentlemen, and after-
wards observed him go close up to a gentleman and
hastily leave. Suspecting his object, he followed him
him up the Haymarket, and while doing so saw him
put something in his pocket. He then secured him,
and took him back to the theatre, where he searched him
and found on him four pocket-handkerchiefs—two silk, one
cambric, and one cotton—one of them having the name of
" George Fisher, No. 3" on it. He also found some dupli-
cates in different names. The prisoner at the station gave
the address 2, Bryanston-square ; but from letters found on
him he ascertained his real address to be near Red Lion-
square.
Sergeant George Appleton, 6 C, said he had frequently
seen the prisoner in the company of thieves.
A gentleman in Court said that Mr. George Fisher, the'
theatrical agent, was at the theatre, ho believed, the pre-
vious night, and probably the handkerchief was his pro-
perty, as the names agreed.
The prisoner was remanded.