The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-14 00:00:00

IN RE GEORGE NOBLE.

This bankrupt was described as a builder at Northamp•
ton, and this was a meeting for proof of debts and choice a
assignees.

Mr. Weston, from the office of Mr. Walls, Moorgate.
street, appeared for creditors and carried the choice.
The accounts are in course of preparation by Mr. T. W,
Palmer. The debts and liabilities are not very large.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
• (Before Mr. Kerr.)
SERVANT-GALISM, No. I.—FOLLOWERB.--
COOK Y. PAYNE.

This was an action to recover XI 175., balance of wages
actually earned, alleged to be due to plaintiff, a domestic
servant. Plaintiff said she had been summarily dismissed
without any reason, and the wages earned being withheld
she had brought the present action.

His Honour—Well, Mr. Payne, why don't you pay Miss
Cook her wages ?

Defendant—l will tell your honour. One evening I and
my family went out, leaving the house under plaintiff's
charge. When we returned it was discovered that she had
had a young man in to spend the evening with her, and ho
had stopped until a late hour. (A laugh.)
His Honour—Oh, they will have followers, you know.
(Renewed laughter.) It's no use trying to prevent it.
Defendant—Some clothes belonging to one of my chil-
dren were missing, and plaintiff was questioned upon the
subject. She denied all knowledge of the missing pro-
perty, but then there was the young man, and she would
not tell me his name. (A laugh.) She knew where he
was living, and if she had told me I might have traced out
the clothes.

His Honour—l do not think she was bound to tell you.
You see there was nothing to connect him with the pro-
perty, and it was not very pleasant for her to have him ac-
cused. The mere suspicion of felony is no ground for with-
holding her wages.

Defendant—l believe she has been paid all her wages.
Plaintiff—lndeed 1 have not. I told Mr. Payne that the
young man lived with his mother.
His honour—You must pay this money forthwith, Mr.
Payne..
Verdict for plaintiff.
No. 2.—AN IMPERTINENT MISTRESS-MY SUNDAY ETEN

ING OUT-RIORDEN V. SCOTT.
This was an action to recover a month's wages in lieu of

notice.

• Plaintiff, a very smart looking girl, said she had been
suddenly turned out without notice.

Defendant—l will just tell your honour about this. Ono
Sunday evening Mrs. Scott asked plaintiff to take baby.
" It's like your impertinence to ask such a thing when you
know it's my Sunday evening out," replied Miss Itiorden.
(Roars of laughter.) hearing this, I came out of the par -
lour, and told her sho should not go out, or if she did that
she might stop out altogether. She did go ont—(laughter)
—and the next morning demanded her money, and said sho
would not remain.

Plaintiff—The abuse I've had to put up with is awful;
while the names he called me ; and had to nurse baby in a
cold room night after night, when he knows I came from
carriage people. (Roars of laughter.)

His-donour—Don't talk rubbish.
Plaintiff—Ah I no one knows. I've had to walk upon
rats. (Renewed laughter.)

His Honour—Did your mistress tell you not to go out ?
Plaintiff—She did not stop me.
His Honour—Did she tell you that if you went out you
would forfeit your wages ?
Plaintiff—Oh, no. Besides, I had a right to go out. I
expressly engaged for my Sunday evening; and the lan-
guage he used was dreadful.

His Honour—Your tongue is a perfect curse to you. I
should think your mistress must have had a nice time of
it. You will not answer a question properly; and it is very
clear you went out against the wishes of your mistress.
You will be no nsuited.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—( This Day.)

MANSION-HOUSE.

John Baxter was charged with embezzeling £l7O, the
moneys of his masters, Messrs. Christie, hatters, City, in
whose employment he was chief clerk and cashier.
Mr. Hugget," detective, apprehended the prisoner in
Jersey, and brought him back to London. He gave up to
the constable £174.

The prisoner was reminded till Friday.
Richard Wm. May, Billingsgate-market, was charged
on summons by the superintendent of the Salmon Fisheries
on the Tweed, with being unlawfully possessed of salmon,
contrary to the statute for the preservation of salmon in
close time. The defendant settled the case by giving a
cheque for £l9 6s.