The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-17 00:00:00

THE JUDGE AND THE BARRISTERS.

A learned counsel this morning, in referring to a case
that was passed over yesterday, said he had to apologise for
mentioning the case of Clark v. Clark which was set down
fnr yasttorday.

The Judge Ordinary—A number of you gentlemen say
" you have to apologise," but you never do :What apology
do you make ?

Counsel—The case was passed over entirely owing to my
absence, which was unavoidable.

The Judge Ordinary—What do you wish to do ?
Counsel—l wish to examine a witness to prove the posi-
tion of the respondent in this case, which is one for
pendente lite.

The Judge Ordinary—Hare the usual notices been
served?

Counsel—l believe :so, my lord.

The Judge Ordinary—l find one of the notices is with-
out the name of the solicitors, which renders it informal.
Counsel—Another notice was given to the officers of the
Court.

The Judge Ordinary—Yes, but not in time. I cannot
pass over such irregularities ; if so, we should soon get into
endless confusion. When professional men find the incon-
venience of being careless, they will pay more attention to
their business.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Deputy Joyce.)

CURIOUS CASE OF A HUSBAND'S NON-LIABILITY.-

DIGGINS V. PIPER.

In this case plaintiff sought to recover 235., the value of
certain articles pledged by the defendant's wife, and for
certain breakages.

Mr. Sorrell, of Mark-lane, for the defendant, only ad-
mitted breaking one jug, valued at 21d.
Plaintiff stated that defendant's wife pledged articles
belonging to plaintiff without her knowledge or consent.
Mr. Sorrell—Can you show that defeniantknew anything
of it ?

Plaintiff—No. I only know that he broke one of the jugs.
His Honour—You have mistaken the remedy. If you
wish to prevent further trouble you should consult a pro-
fessional gentleman.

Mr. Sorrell—There is more in this than meets the eye;
but, in so far as the case has gone, I must contend that
defendant is not liable for his wife's misconduct.

His Honour--Clearly not. This was a case for another
Court. Plaintiff will have a verdict for ls. for the ad-
mitted broken jug, but it is a question if, having taken
these steps, she is not precluded from following another
course as to the pledged property.
Verdict for Is.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—(This Day).

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

CAUTION TO HOUSE-XEEPER3.--DARING ROBBERY:

William Herben, an artful-looking fellow, who gave the
address Horseferry-road, but which turned out to be false,
was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt with stealing a mahogany
spirit case, the property of Mr. Thomas Arthur Bertie
Mostyn, of 41, St, James's-place.

Mr. Thomas Stock, of 25, Belgrave-place, Pimlico, a
clerk, said he was at 41, St. James's-place, the previous
evening, about 7 o'clock, and as he was going up the stairs
he remarked to his sister that the parlour and street doors
were open. He made the remark in a rather loud tone to
his sister, and at that moment the prisoner rushed out of
the house, coming from the parlour. He (witness) stayed
at the door, thinking some others might be in the parlour,
and a person went after the prisoner and brought him back,
and shortly found the case where he had found the prisoner.
Wm. Brown, servant to Mr. Mostyn, proved pursuing
the prisoner, and bringing him back, and afterwards going
back to the place where the prisoner had ran, and finding
the case which was the property of his master, Mr. Mostyn,
and which he had seen safe a short time before on the par-
lour, the door being closed after him. The outer door
opened with a latch key.

M'Mahon, C division, said the prisoner had given a false
address, and the prisoner, who had put one or two artful
questions to the witnesses, was remanded.

THAMES.

CRUEL ROBBERY. - William Wilkinson, aged 20, a
labourer, was brought before Mr. Selfe charged with steal-
ing a suit of clothes, and other property, valued at £5, the
property of John Murray.

In October last the prosecutor and the prisoner jointly
occupied the same room at a dwelling house, 70, Back
Church-lane, Whitechapel. On Oct. 19, the prisoner
absconded, taking with him a suit of clothes and other
articles the property of his fellow-lodger, and was not heard
of or seen again by his landlady or Murray until yesterday,
when he was met in High-street, Whitechapel, by Mrs.
Jones, the landlady of the house, who gave him into cus-
tody. He had previously sent a duplicate relating to the
stolen property which he had pawned, to the prosecutor.
The duplicate was produced. The prosecutor, a hard
working man, had been unable to redeem his property, and
had been put to great inconvenience.
The prisoner made a random defence, in which he en-
deavoured to make it out that he was an ill-used individual,
inasmuch as he had forwarded the pawnbroker's duplicate
to the prosecutor. He ultimately pleaded guilty, and Mr.
Selfo said that Murray was the ill-used person, for he had
been basely robbed by a fellow• lodger of all his clothes.
He sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned four months
and kept to hard labour.