The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-22 00:00:00

JUDGMENT.-AIREY V. ECREHAM.

This was a suit for a dissolution of amedical partnership
in the West-end, and return of the balmee of the premium
(£lOO out of £400) paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on
the ground of misrepresentation of the profits of the de-
fendant's medical business.

The plaintiff alleged that on becoming a partner he was to
have a third share of the profits of the lusiness, estimated at
£6,000 a-year.

His Honour, the Master of the Robs, on considering the
evidence produced, was of opitiion bat the plaintiff had
failed to prove his allegations, and declared the partnership
dissolved as of this day without costs on either side, and
directed an account of the profits of the partnership to be
taken, and recommended that if the piffles were wise they
would settle their differences themselvs, and not bring their
disputes again before him.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Ken.)
PUBLIC BALLS iiND LOST PROPERTY-FORDRAM v. SALTER.
This was au action to recover £2 10s., the value of a coat
and contents lost at a ball at Salter's Hotel.
The plaintiff was called by Mr. Crey, and said that he
attended a ball at Salter's Hotel in January last. Gave his
Inverness cape to a waiter, and received a ticket with the
number. At the termination of the night's festivities the
coat was not to be found.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hind--The coat was a new one.
In the pocket was a street door key, a pair of gloves, and a
pocket handkerchief. The ball wes got up by a philan-
thropic society to assist the poor cluing the late inclement
weather. Bought the ticket for the ball at a public-house.
Saw a bill in the window of the public-house at which my
ticket was purchased, notifying the fact that my coat had
been " lost or stolen." Mr. Hind contended that Mr. Salter
could not be made liable in such a ease as this. The waiter
took the coat and gave up a ticket, but was not in the ser-
vice of Mr Salter for such a duty. He was not engaged to
take care of coats, and surely the Ices could not be charged
to defendant. Again it had not been shown that the plain-
tiff gave the waiter anything for his trouble in taking care
of the coat.

His Honour—There was no bailment.
Mr. Hind—Just so. The hall at the hotel was hired by
a philanthropic society for a ball, and the waiters gave
tickets for the coats and hats.
Plaintiff-1 meant to give the waiter something when I
received my coat. If he were not responsible, of what use
was the ticket ?

His Honour—Had you given the waiter a halfpenny
with the coat there would have been some consideration.
As it is I do not see how you can make the defendant or
the waiter liable. To make the defendant liable you will
have to show agency, and that you have not done.

Upon this decision plaintiff elected to be nonsuited.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—( This Day.)

MARLBOROUGII-STREET.

SERUMS ANNOYANCE.--Fanty Price, a young woman,
was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt as follows :
Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, ap-
peared for the complainant.
Mr. Henry Charles Curlewis, a master tailor, of 55, Con-
duit-street, said the prisoner's husband had been in his em-
ploy about 10 "years, and was a very respectable man, but he
was sorry to say that the prisoner was a woman of a very
drunken character. Yesterday she came to his place of
business very drunk, and on his entering the workshop,
where several men were employed, he found her fighting
with her husband and several of the workmen, and throw-
ing the whole place into the greatest disorder. He had
seriously to complain of the annoyance he suffered from
her for about four years, as every time she got drunk, which
was very frequently the case, ahe created a disturbance, and
wasee only
months for annoying him.collected a crowd round his house. She used very threa-
teningjust liberated from prison,
whore
e slhaneghuaadgbe,eeanndfor
three r
Prisoner said she thought it better to bo in prison than
to be about the streets. Her husband allowed her nothing.
Mr. Curlewis said that was not true.
Mr. Tyrwhitt, referring to the charge sheet, said she was
charged with being drunk, and ho could only deal with her
for that. She ought to have been charged with assault.
He should fine her 10s. or one week, and if she came again
she would have three months.