The Sun.
London, England, 1855-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

COURT' OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Lord Campbell and a Common Jury.)
HART V. ELAM AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to reco-
ver damages of the defendants for a trespass in breaking
and entering his house, and taking away certain articles.
The plaintiff's case was, that he purchased of a reran
named Grant, who also occasionally went by the name
of Gray, and who described himself as an artist and
house decorator, certain articles of furniture on the
premises, at 92, Portland-street, and also his interest
in the premises, for which he paid 221. Before he en-
tered on the occupation of the house, the defendants
broke and entered the premises, and carried away the
articles. They were subsequently given into custody
and taken before a magistrate, who discharged them,
on the ground that it was not a police case, Hence the
present action to recover the value of the goods, and
compensation in damages for the loss of the use of
them.

The defence was that Grant obtained from Elam a
quantity of cocoa-matting and other articles by fraud,
which were delivered at 31, Saville-row, and subse-
quently, by the aid of the John-street Trade Protection
Society, traced to the premises, 92, Portland-street,
which he had taken on lease, but not occupied. The
other articles were supplied by Mrs. Hetherington, an-
other of the defendants, and sent to the last-named pre-
mises. The defendants were unable to obtain payment
for their goods, and they offered to take them. back
again. On the 23d March last, they, with two other
men, repaired to the premises, where they met Grant.
He pretended not to be able to find the key of the
front door, and at his suggestion one of the men got
i rte. the area, broke a pane of glass, opened the win-
dow and entered, and admitted the others by the
front door, who cleared away the articles belonging
to them. At this time Grant had assigned the house
and furniture to the plaintiff.
The Learned Counsel for the defendants contended
that the goods having been obtained by fraud from the
defendants, Elam and Hetherington, the ownership bad
not actually passed from them, and that they were jus-
tified in doing what they had, as if in a case of felony.
Lord Campbell dissented. No one could blame them
for what they had done under the circumstances, but
the law would not justify the adoption of such a course,
Hart, at the time, though unknown to them, being in
lawful possession of the house.
The learned counsel also contended that the sale and
transfer was a colourable transaction to deprive the de-
fendants of their property.
Lord Campbell, in summing tip,..vaid he was sorry
for the defendants, who appeared to have incautiously
parted with their property, bu.; there was no pretence
in law for saying the defendants were justified in doing
what they had. Hart had taken an assignment of the
house and property, and paid his money, and was in
lawful possession of the premises at the time of the tres-
pass. It was not a else for damages beyond the plain-
tiff's actual pecuniary less.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages
30/.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(Ms Day.)

MARYLEBONE.

Robert Carr, a middle-aged man, was charged before
Mr. Broughton with stealing several bottles of wine from
the cellars of Mr. J. Bateman, wine and spirit merchant,
and landlord of the Prince Alfred, Alfred-terrace,
Queer's-road, Bayswater.
The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was sent to the
lima of Correction for six months with hard labour.