The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-24 00:00:00

LA IV INTELLIGEXCE.-7(TEIS DA )

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
LOST PROPERTY-IMPORTANT CASE-TEBBETT

V. ISENBERG.

This was a summons to recover £6 10s., the value of 19
pairs of boots, left at defendant's warehouse, and alleged
to have been sold.

Mr. Buchanan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Lumley for the defendant.

The transaction giving rise to the present proceedings
occurred as far back as 1853. It appeared that plaintiff,
who is a boot and shoemaker of Northampton, submitted a
parcel of 48 pairs of boots for defendant to select from.
Defendant made a choice of 29 pairs, leaving 19 pairs for
plaintiff to take away. At plaintiff's instance these 19
pairs were left in defendant's warehouse to be taken care
of as a favour. Some time afterwards plaintiff applied for
his property, and was told that by mistake some of the
boots had been sold. Ho was offered a small parcel of four
pairs alleged to be the residue, but refused to take them
away.

Defendant alleged that the boots (19 pairs) were taken
care of as a favour, and upon application returned to
plaintiff.

Mr. Lumley contended that defendant was bound, as
bailie of these goods, to take ordinary, but not extraordi-
nary care of them.

His Honour—l don't think selling a person's property is
taking care of it. Plaintiff is entitled to a verdict with costs.
SOLICITORS AND ATTORNEY'S ROBES AND THE COURT.
In a case which occurred, Mr. Beard applied for his
costs.

His Honour—You will have your costs, but I tell you
that on and from the Ist October next, a great many altera-
tions will be made, and I intend to be very strict. Only a
day o'r two ago T allowed a counsel V. 3s. 6d. who told me
that he did not consider his case of sufficient importance
to appear in costume, but I shall require not only counsel
but also solicitors to robe, or I shall not allow fees.
Mr. Buchanan—l think it will be a very good rule.
His Honour—You had better look sharp ; you have a
long notice.

Mr. Beard—Shall we have to robe ?
His Honour—Certainly.
The matter then dropped.
LYONS V. JORDAN-LOAN SOCIETIES AND SURETIES.

Plaintiff had been security for defendant for a loan of
Z. Defendant became a defaulter, and plaintiff, as surety,
was 'summoned for Li ss. at the Clerkenwell County Court.
Plaintiff was ordered to pay the money by instalments,
having done which he now sought to recover from defen-
dant the amount.

Mr. Hockley Wood, for the defendant, contended that
plaintiff had paid £1 15s. more than was due, and after
being informed that only £2 10s. was due. Plaintiff could
not recover the £1 ]ss.

His Honour decided that plaintiff was bound to attend
to the order of the Clerkenwell County Court, and
ordered defendant to pay the amount in 20 days.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ROBBERY, AND LUCKY ESCAPES.—Ann Williams and
Emma Bishop, the latter of whom has been previously
charged at this court with felony, were charged with steal-
ing a silver watch of the value of £5, the property of Mr.
John Clement, upholsterer, 21, Poland-street, Oxford-
street.

The prosecutor said he went into Mr. M'Honald's, the
Scotch Stores, Oxford-street, that:morning, about two, with
some friends, having previously to going to the house been
drinking rather freely. He partook of more drink with his
friends, who shortly after left, and he thm got into conver-
sation with the prisoners, and left the house with them,
one on each side, and as he was going along Oxford-street,
he put his hand to his waistcoat pooket and missed his
watch. He at once taxed the prisoners with the robbery,
but they stoutly denied ; but feeling certain they had got
it, he detained them, and gave them into custody. He
valued the watch as the gift of his father.
Mr. Beadon said if he had any regard for his father's
watch he would advise him to keep sober.
A constable who assisted in taking the prisoner into cus-
tody said that, seeing Williams fidgetting about, he seized
her hand and took the watch from it.

Mr. Beadon said Bishop was a well-known thief, and had
escaped before (she was charged with robbing a butler of
about £2O a short time since), and must escape a second
time, but she had botter be cautious or she might not escape
the third. There was not sufficient legal evidence against
her, and she was discharged. As to the other (Williams),
who had also been at the court before, he should ask her
whether she was guilty or not.

Williams pleading guilty, she was committed for four
months with hard labour.