The Sun.
London, England, 1830-12-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dec. S.
WATERS V. STATON.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
far a impinge, It appeared, front, the statement of Mr.
PLATT, and afterward, confirmed by evidence, that the
plaintiff, a poor widow wittnan, living at Lintehoule,
rented a house of 'the defendant, at the rate of Ss. 6d. a
week. When she became his tenant, in April hot, he
agreed to repair the house, which hevinfdons, he told the
plaintiff that he should raise her rent. The plaintiff replied
"You cannot do that, as you engaged to do the repairs at
the time I agreed to give you S.. 6d. s-week, and,
therefore, I shall not think of paying you anything more."
The defendant said, " But you must pay me more rent, or
out of the house you go." The plaintiff, however, refused
either to leave the house or to pay wore rent than she had
agreed to; and the defendant, in consequence, took the
door off its hinges and the window sashes out ; he shin
carried the plaintiff's furniture to an adjoining house,
and put it into a cellar, where it remained to the present
time. The Learned Counsel said he trusted the Jury
would teach the defendant, by their verdict, that the length
of his purse would not justify him in oppressing a poor
widow, but that they would give such damages as she was
in justice entitled to.

Several witnesses deposed to the facts stated in the
opening,
Mr. CADSPIIRLL addressed the Jury at considerable
length for the defendant. He represented the case as one
of those pettifogging actions which sometimes disgraced a
Court of Justice, and which was brought for the tole pur.
pose of putting costs into t.ri attorney's pocket. " But,"
said the Learned Counsel, " I hope and believe that the
day is not far distant when the time of the Chief Justice of
this Court, and twelve Jurymen, will not be occupied in
snob trumpery and disgraceful causes. Means are being
taken to put a stop to them. Now, what were the real
facts of the case, and what was the injury sustained bythe
plaintiff? Her furniture (it had been said) was taken away :
Prue it was, and carried to the house of her sister. It was
not damaged, and she might at any moment take posses.
sion of it; and with respect to the mode Mr. Stilton adopted
to eject the plaintiff from his house, it was the mildest and
most merciful that he could have resorted to. It
ha hid brought an action of ejectment against the plaintiff
she coats would have &wowed to 801. or 601., a writ of
fi. fa. would issue, and the poor widow would have
to spend her time in a gaol. It was, therefore, he would
contend, mercy in resorting to what was called " a Weioh
ejectment.—(A l.►ugh.)—The Learned Connscl then re,
marked on the evidenen in snpport of trio case, and con-
plaided by culling on the Jury to discountenance such ac-
tions fay giving a verdict for the defendant.

i., ;.... . .. . . ....-....
Lout TICNT/RDIN 10 summing up said that the plain•
tiff was entitled to a verdict if the Jury thought that she
had become the defendant's tenant previously to the repairs
being done. If so they would say.vvhill damage the had
optaipaili

Thi; ,linry, after home consultation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff.—Datnages, Os.
Thi• verdict being under 401., does not carry code
without the Judge certifies.

-
Mr. PLAIT therefore applied fur his Lordship's certifi-
cate. It was, he said, a dreadfully hard uusc on his client,
I,hat she Qisquld be turned out saf her home odoti deprived
of her property; he did therefore hope she would not be
made liable for costs.

Mr. CAMPBELL opposed the application.
Lord TIINTrAIWY—i coqainly shall not entity. If the
plaintiff has last her furnitnre (but which there is no evi-
dence of) take a verdict for its value, and then 1 will cer-
tify, and deprive lAer of costs,