The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-06 00:00:00

WHITECHAPEL COUNTY COURT.
LITIGATION EXTRAORDINARY.-LlOO COSTS.-DEBT
• £.B 165.—F0X T. HURLEY.
This case has been before the judge of the Whitechape
County Court no less than thirteen times since February,
1859, and is of the following character. Plaintiff is a loan

office keeper, of Whitechapel, and defendant is the widow
of one Daniel Hurley, deceased, formerly of the Bank of
England. Some little time before his death, Mr. Hurley
borrowed a sum of money from plaintiff upon a promissory
note, it is said to pay the premium due uponhis policy of
insurance upon his life. Shortly after the death of Mr.

Hurley, which occurred within a month or two of this
borrowing, plaintiff asked Mrs. Hurley, the defendant, for
his money, as she had received some from the Insur-
ance office. Mrs. Hurley said that she had no assets and all

themoney had been disbursed in payment of deceased's debts.
Feeling that he should have been paid, plaintiff took
out a summons on the 13th January of the present year.
This summons was appointed for hearing on 3d February,
when it was adjourned at plaintiff's instance. On the 10th
of February, the day appointed for the adjourned hearing,
a verdict was pased quando acciderunt. On the 14th of
March execution was levied. On the 18th the execu-
tion was withdrawn as premature, by order of the,

judge. On the 18th of March a summons was taken out
to compel defendant to show assets. On the 12th of April

that summons was heard and dismissed. On the 13th of
April plaintiff gave notice of application for a new trial,
and on the 21st the order for a new trial was made. On thei
10th of May defendant was too ill to be examined, and was:
ordered to pay £4 15s. 4d., a sum adjudged to be in her hands
unaccounted for. On the 21st of May defendant gm() notice
of an application to vary the order on proof of disbursements
exceeding the, X 4 15s. 4d. On the 31st of May, defendant's
attorney being absent, defendant was condemned in costs,
£1 17s. 6d. Yesterday, the sth of July, an interpleader
summons was heard, a person named West appearing as
claimant of the property seized in execution.
Mr. Barry, instructed by Mr. Perry, of Moorgate-street,
rose on the part of the claimant, but Mr. Steadman, for the
plaintiff and execution creditor, took an objection that, as
required by one of the rules, five clear days' notice had not
been given by the claimant of the nature of his property in
the goods seized, and a list of such goods.
Mr. Perry said that on the 29th June the notice was sent
per message to the Registrar, but the Court having re-
moved from Osborne-street to its present site, the messen-
ger returned, having been unable to fulfil his errand. The
notice was then posted on the evening of the 29th.

Mr. Steadman contended that the notice should have
reached the hands of the High Sheriff five clear days, and
that as it had not done so his Honour had no jurisdiction.
Mr. Barry said it had been posted and reached the court
on the evening of the 29th June.
His Honour decided that the notice was not sufficient,
and that no cause being before him he could not give costs.
If the parties were not satisfied with his law they could
apply for a writ of mandamus to compel him to hear the
interpleader.
This is the last step in this most extraordinary case.
The costs on each side have already reached above £5O, and
the defendant has brought an action in the superior court
for illegal seizure. Party feeling runs very high in this
matter, one side alleging that Mr. Fox is an ill-used man,
as defendant admits the sum to be due, but says she has
no assets, and the other that defendant has been compelled
to pay costs when she had no assets as deposed from the+
insurance money.

CRIMINAL COURT.( THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice ,Wightman.)
THE TRIAL OF DR. SMETHURST.

This morning much disappointment was observable irr
the court in consequence of the trial of Dr. Smethurst, who
stands indicted for do wilful murder of Miss Isabella
Bankes, being again postponed. The cause, we believe,
which led to such an arrangement was occasioned by its
being fully expected that the Lord Chief Justice of England,
Sir A. Cockburn, would be occupied the whole of to-day
with the Swinfen case in the Court of Exchequer, Guild-
hall. It was not before all the arrangements for proceeding
with the trial of Dr. Smethurst to-morrow morning had
been completed, that the Swinfen case was unexpectedly
concluded.