The Sun.
London, England, 1858-10-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)
THE JOINT STOCK COMPANIES' STORR V. TETE

SEVERAL PERSONS TRADING UNDER THE TITLE OF

" TIM VITRIOL ENAMEL COMPANY (LIMITED)."

A solicitor who attended for the defendants said he should
be able to save the time of the Court bycalling his Honour's
attention to the fact that a number of persons had been
summoned by the plaintiff as trading under the title of
" The Patent Vitriol Enamel Company." Now this com-
pany was a "limited" one, and as such was duly incorpo-
rated under the Joint Stock Company's Act—and under
that act, the company, being an incorporated body, should
be sued as " The Patent Vitriol Enamel Company
(Limited)."
Plaintiff insisted that the Company had admitted the
debt.

The Solicitor—Yes, and you must sue the company in
:he person of its registered officer.

His Honour said that would be so in cases of incorporated
bodies. A person could not sue Sir R. W. Carden for the
Corporation of the City of London.

A question then arose as to the necessity of the word
" limited " being affixed to all orders, receipts, &c., in fact
all documents signed by the officers or members of the com-
pany. It appeared that aMr Bransden had signed a re-
ceipt without the word " limited," and his Honour said
Mr. Bransden had clearly made himself liable. He would,
however, adjourn the case till a future day, and hoped the
case would then be settled.

In all these cases the company should be sued ; but the
officers of the company should remember that they were
liable in penalties for not putting the word " limited."

SINGULAR AND IMPORTANT APPLICATION FOR COSTS:-

IN THE MATTER OF TYLER AND DANIELS.

Mr. Humphreys,jun., said. he had to apply for costs
under the following peculiar circumstances. Daniels, who
had been a workman in the employ of. Mr. Tyler, sum-
moned that person for £2 Os. 10d., wages and notice. Tyler
paid 9s. 10d. into court, and Daniels accepted that sum in
full. Now, under these circumstances, it was Daniels'
duty to give Tyler notice that he had accepted the sum
paid into court three clear days before the trial of the
cause. That notice never came to Mr, Tyler's hands,
and he (Mr. Humphreys) with counsel attended on
his behalf on the day of trial. Plaintiff did not then
appear, and his Honour granted costs upon application.
Those costs were paid in by Mr. Daniels under protest,
and he (Mr. Humphreys) now applied to have those costs
paid out. He would admit that Daniels had written to
Mr. Tyler at his place of abode two days before the day of
hearing—but the summons was issued for the place of
business, and the cause of action then arose, and he con-
tended that the notice sent to the private residence was in-
formal and void. Mr. Tyler was out of town, and did not
receive the notice (if notice it could be called), until after
the hearing of the cause.

His Honour said Mr. Humphreys was under amistake
as to notices served at the abode of the defendant, but the
notice not being served in time his Honour was kind
enough to make an order that the costs should be paid over
to Mr. Tyler.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day).

BOW-STREET.

QUEER LODGERS.—A woman, named Elizabeth Holland,
was charged with setting fire to a room in a house in the
neighbourhood of Drury-lane._ _ _

Mrs. Jones said—l keepa ledging-house in Charles-street,
Drury-lane. The prisoner occupied a room in the house.
Early this morning some of the other lodgers came to my
room door, and said the house was on fire. I got up and
went to the prisoner's apartment, and there I found the place
in flames. The bed and bedclothes were consumed, mid a
round table, which was at the other end of the room, was
burning. Assistance arrived, and the fire was extinguished.
Mr. Henry—Was the prisoner at home when the fire
occurred

Complainant--I can't say. Some of the other lodgers
said they heard a voice which they believed to be hers.
There were three people in her room during the night.
Mr. Henry—Then, you can't say for certain whether
she was one of the party.

Complainant—No, your worship.
Mr. Henry—Then, I don't see how you can say she set
fire to the place.
Complainant—But she had possession of the room.
Mr. Henry—That may be ; but you cannot indict her for
setting fire to the room, unless you are sure she was the
person that did so.
Conplainant—Some of the lodgers said they heard her
voice.

Mr. Henry—That is no proof she was in the room. They
may have thought it was her voice, but that's all. What
have you to say to the charge ?
Prisoner—l never set fire to the place. I left the room
last evening at 6 o'clock, and never returned until this
morning, when I found the place had been on fire. I left
it safe enough. _ _

Complainant—Who were the people in your room ?
Prisoner—How should I know. L was out all night, and
had the key of the door with me.
. .

_ -
Complainant—There were some women singing to an
accordion played by a man.
Prisoner—l know nothing about it. I was away from
the place all night. _

Henry---4 don't see how you can feel surprised at
anything which takes place when you let out your apart-
ments to such people as the prisoner. Of course she has
acquaintances, and they knowing she was not in the habit
of returning home after she had once left her room till the
next morning, it 'was not improbable that they, by means of
a false key, entered the place. The lock on the door I sup-
pose was a very common one. Or the fire might have oc-
curred through pure accident.

Complainant—That could not be. The bedstead and
bedelothing were burning at one end of the room, and the
table, which was covered with a lot of loose paper, was on
fire at the other end.

Mr. Henry—There is no proof that the prisoner was at
home when the occurrence took place. I must discharge
her.

Prisoner—l was not at home at all during the night.

The prisoner was then ordered to be discharged.
VIOLENT ASSAULT.—John Bryson, a journeyman baker,
was charged with violently assaulting an elderly man and
a police-constable.
Police-constable A 310 said—Last night I saw the pri-
soner and his with in New Oxford-street. They were
quarrelling. After they had proceeded a short distance I
saw the woman raise an umbrella and strike the prisoner.
He turned round, and, using a violent expression, struck a
gentleman, who was near at the time, a tremendous
blow on the temple, which felled him to the ground. I in-
stantly ran up, and asked the prisoner why he had struck
the gentleman, when he called me a disgusting name,
and said he would serve me the same. He then struck me
on the side of the head. He also tried to kick me in the
abdomen. In warding off the kick my thumb was dislocated.
Finding he had disabled me he continued ill-treating me,
until I got my rattle from my pocket, the noise from which
procured me assistance. It took four constables to convey
the prisoner to the station. •

The gentleman first struck by the man having given his
evidence,

Mr. Henry asked the prisoner what he had to say to the

charge?

Prisoner—l-was drunk, and I don't recollect anything.
Mr. Henry—The old excuse. I cannot take drunkenness
as any excuse for so violent an outrage. I fine you £5, or
in default commit you to prison for a month.