The Express.
London, England, 1858-03-19 00:00:00

THE QIIIEN V. JOHNSON AND OTHERS.

Thin case was disposed of In the early part of the day. It
wee en indictment against the chairman and directors of
the Phoenix Gas Company, instituted by the oommimionere
for the conservancy of the river Thames, for a nuisance in
allowing refuse matter from their premises, at Bankside to
flow into the river.

--Mr. 61;2;;..C.ipairea on behalf of the prosecution ; Mr.
Robinson wu for the defendants.
An arrangement was come to by which a plea of guilty
was taken upon some of the counts of the indictments, and
verdicts of not guilty upon the others, the understanding
being that the defendants should do all in their power to
abate the nuisance complained of, and pay the costa of the
promotion.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—WARWICK, MARCH 18.
(Before Lord Campbell.)
YIELD (umiaaD) T. LECT (HENRY SPENCER).-ACTION

FOIL 1 L.LiOiL INTRESEI.

Counsel for Q.C., and Mr.
Wills; for the defendant" Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr.
Field.

Mr. Wills said this was enaction for breaking and entering
itoti soi.laintifi's dwelling-house and stealing a quantity of his
The defendant pleaded first, not guilty; secondly, that the
goods were not the goods of the plaintiff ; thirdly, that the
dwelling-house was not the dwelling-house of the plaintiff ;
fourthly, that he committed the trespass in execution of •
writ of fi. fa. upon the goods of Samuel Robbins ; and, fifthly,
that the goods belonged to Samuel Robbins.
Mr. Mellor, Q.C., said the plaintiff sought to recover
1261. 19s. for • most extraordinary proceeding on
the part of the high sheriff of this county, in-
demnified no doubt by the execution creditor, whose con-
duct would be brought before them in this case. The execu-
tion in respect of which the goods were seized wee against
Samuel Robbins, by •• man named Garrett, mortgagee,
against Samuel Robbins and Francis Robbins, who were oo-
mortgagors or jointly parties to • covenant for payment of
the money. As the freehold of the property was not worth
the amount of the mortgage, the mortgagee brought an ac-
tion and obtained judgment, upon which an execution was
put into the plaintiff's house on the 18th of December last.
The plaintiff, Mr. Field, was a man infirm in health, who
bad had little to do with the management of the business in
question. He originally lived as farm servant to Sam. Robbins.
who some 20 years ago occupied 'farm at Snitterfield, and Mrs.
Field was housekeeper at the same place. They lived with
him a little time, and when he left the farm Mr. Field went
to live with his father at Bidford, in the same capacity as he
bad lived with Samuel Robbins. Mrs. Field, at the same
time, came to live at Warwick, took a house in West-street,
sad est up • greengrocer's shop. She kept that on for
about • year, whoa, by the advice of old Mr. Robbins, she
began the business of a butcher. She had a son, then 17
of age, and a hired man who used to assist her .in the
business. Old Robbins, the father, died; and upon his death
Samuel Robbins, the son, being much reduced, came to live
at Fields house, occupied a small bit of land
in the neighbourhood, and did • little in dealing
in beasts. Mr. Field, the husband, had no ac-
quaintance with the buiiness, and did not interfere with
it, having been farm manager to Mr. Robbins, sen., till a
few years ago, when he came home infimi in health. At
Christmas last, Samuel Robbins having lodged with them
some time, having occasionally assisted them with his judg-
ment, and having been engaged in busing and ogling on his
own account, sometimes selling haute to Fields, for which
he was always paid ; at Christens last they had been buying
• quantity of beasts, preparing for Christmas, and he should
give minute evidence as to this meat being paid for
by Mrs. Field and son. Having made this prepara-
tion the sheriff's officer came in with • writ of
fi. fa. against Samuel Robbins, and seined the meat
and butalers' utensils in the shop, and they were sold under
the execution next day. Witnesses were then called to
prove the above facts ; and they were cross-examined by Mr.
Macaulay with a view of showing that Robbins was the
occupier of the house, and the goods were kis.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, Mr. Macaulay
having said he should not call witnesses for the defence,
Mr. Mellor was proceeding to sum up the plaintiff's case,
when

The learned Judge said, if no witnesses were celled for
the defence, after such a very strong case for the plaintiff,
the learned gentleman, whom they all so much re-
spected, and who would no doubt do all that
talent and eloquence could accomplish, he thought
could not expect them merely on his observations
to rin the face of positive, direct, and uncontradicted
evidence.
Mr. Macaulay said he might be labouring under an hallu-
cination, Ind he had intended to ask the Jury not to believe
the evidence of Mrs. Field and Robbins.

The Judge said he must say it appeared to him, as it stood,
in undefended cue.
Mr. Macaulay intimated that if there was • strong opinion
in the jury-box in favour of the credit of Mrs. ',told and
Robbins, after what had passed, he should not attempt the
ttrokugolfit enwilleetnv=ingcar to
ee removetnedthle trufyreroulld
He had
think that, though this was not a case of an srrsogement
made at the moment for the purpose of defeating an execu-
tion, yet that there had been a motive from the very begin
ning for Mr. Robbins having a butcher's shop established in
Warwick in the name of another person—that this old
labourer and his wife were not likely to have capital for esta-
blishing.• ilouriahing butcher's business at Warwick.
The jury having expressed their satisfaction with the
plaintiff's case,
Mr. Maeauliy consented to • verdict for the plaintiff—
damages, 1201.