The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-26 00:00:00

STREET

all
161
}l9O

1. .1.0.

2s.
2s. 6d

7i
all
5
100
all

all
all
}lOO
100
all
100
all

1 2s.
all

1 all
all
all
all
all
all

184 19 d:
14 1 d 1

- -d

') 15
all

—d d
191 14
11 f d
1 I d
1 I d

1001 1 1001

,AILWAY S.

all
all

His Honour—ls Mrs. How here?
Mr. Davies—No.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

To-day was appointed for the choice of assignees in the
case of this bankrupt, who had carried on business as a
hotel keeper, &c., in St J ames's-stroet, but is in facts com-
pany (limited). The debts are about £12,000, unsecured,
about £ll,OOO. The assets depend upon the value of the
shares of which the bankrupt holds a great number. The
meeting was merely for proof of debts, and no accounts had
been filed, but were in course of preparation by Nessrs.
Parl and Turner.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
HOW TO STOP PER.TURY.-PHILLIPS V. HOW.
This was a summons to recover £1 Bs. for one week's
wages in lieu of notice. _ . .

Mr. W. B. Davies appeared for the defendant, who is a
veterinary surgeon.
...

Plaintiff alleged that when he was engaged he armed for
one week's wages or one week's notice. This was strenu-
ously denied by defendant, who deposed that he never made
such an agreement, and that his men left him without giv-
ing notice. To rebut this, a discharged servant of How's
named Aimer, said that he engaged plaintiff and told him
he would have a week's notice. Mrs. How was present at
the time of the engagement.

Plaintiff—l made the agreement with Mr. How, in the
pres2nce of Mrs. How, and Aimer did not say I should have
a week's notice. Mr. How said so himself.

His Honour—This is a case for a jury, and I will endea-
vour to stop these frightful exhibitions of perjury on ono
side or the other. On the next occasion, Mrs. How must
be here ; and whichever party gains the day, the loser will
be committed to the Old Bailey for perjury.
-d I Plaintifl and defendant—Content.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

THE STREET BETTING NUISANCE.-Mr. Charles Thorp
was charged with causing an obstruction in front of the
Black Horse, Coventry-street.

Police-constable Samuel Horsey said—That morning he
saw the defendant in front of the Black Horse, in Coventry-
street, with three or four others, standing talking together.
He saw a man go up to the defendant and hand him some
money, and just as he was about making an entry in a me-
morandum book he had in his hand at the time, he took
him into custody, charging him with causing an obstruc-
tion on the pavement. On examining the book the defen-
dant had he found it related to betting transactions.
In answer to Mr. Bingham, the constable said that per-
sons could not pass along the pavement at the time, and
that there were complaints from the inhabitants of persons
assembling there.

Mr. Bingham said it could not be tolerated that the foot
pavement should be obstructed by persons carrying on their
business on it. It was not permitted that business should
be carried on there, and he would not suffer it to be done.
He would, however, if the defendant would promise not to
repeat the offence, discharge him, and he hoped he would
inform his companions that they must not obstruct the pave-
ment in carrying on their betting business.
The defendant, having given the required promise, was
discharged.