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

LAW INTELLIGENCE--(This Day.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S 13ENCH.
(Before Lord Campbell and a Comreon Jury.)
HART V. ELAM AND OTEMIS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to reco-
ver damages of the defendants for a trogpass in breaking
and entering his house, and faking away certain articles.
The plaintiff's case was, that he putchased of a roan
named Grant, who also occasionally want by the name
of Gray, and who described himself as an artist and
house decorator, certain articles of ftar&ture on the
premises, at 92, Portlanl-street, and also his interest
in the premises, for which ho paid 221, Before he en-
tered on the occupation of the house, the defendants
broke and entered the premises, and carz4.ed away the
articles. They were subsequently given into custody
and taken before a magisOate, who dis charged 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-netting and other articles by fraud,
which were delivered at 31, Saville-ro w, and subse-
quently, by the aid of the John-street Trr,da Protection
Society, traced to the premises, 92, I'ortland-street,
which ho bad taken on lease, but not oexupied. The
other articles were supplied by Mrs. Hetlacrington, an-
other of the defendants, and sent to the hagt-named pre-
mises. The defendants were unable to obtain payment
for their goods, and they offered to take there back
again. On the 23d March last, they, with two other
men, repaired to the premises, where tb ey met Grant.
He pretended not to be able to find tho key of the
front door, and at his suggestion one or the men got
into 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 art' area belonging
to them. At this time Grant had assigned the house
and furniture to the plaintiff.
Tile Learned Counsel for the defend.a,n is contended
that the goods having been obtained by fraud from the
defendants, Elam and Hetherington, the ownership had
not actually passed from them, and that they were jus-
tified in doing what they had, as if in a citse of fe!ony.
Lord Campbell dissented. No one collet 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
trawler was a colourable transaction to deprive the de-
fendants of their property.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, Paid he was sorry
for the defendants, who appeared to have° incautiously
parted with their property, bu;; there w:48: no pretence
in law for saying the defendants were juot ified 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 case for damages beseond the plain-
tiff's antual pecuniary lose.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages
301.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.--(This Day,

MARYLEBONE.

Eobert Carr, a middle-aged man, was charged before
Mr. Broughton with stealing several hottleti of wine from
the cellars of Mr. J. Bateman, wine and spirit merchant,
and landlord of the Prince Alfred, Alfred-terrace,
Queen's•road, Bayswater.
The prisoner pleaded guilty, and wa,st sent to the
Mouse of Correction for six months with bard labour.