The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-18 00:00:00

ASSIZE IN7ELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.--GUILDFORD, Aug. 15.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
NY?IAN V. BRAY AND WARD,
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who
carries on business as a surgical instrument maker
in Boundary-row, Blackfriars-road, to recover da-
mages from the defendants, for having unlawfully
seized certain working tools under a distress for rent.
Mr. Ribton and Mr. B. Rigby were counsel for
the plaintiff; Sergeant Parry and Mr. L. Smith
were for the defendants.
It appeared that the defendant Bray was the
landlord of the house where the plaintiff'resided,
and that the latter being in arrears for four quar-
ters' rent, he instructed the other defendant, who is
a broker, to make a seizure, and on April 11 he did
so, and having made an inventory of the furniture,
he next proceeded to seize two vices, a bellows, and
an anvil, all of which articles were used by the
plaintiff in his trade. The plaintiff's witnesses stated
that the defendant Ward was remonstrated with for
taking the working tools, and reminded that when
he had made seizures on former occasions he had not
done so, but he persisted, and the whole of the arti-
cles, with the exception of the bellows, were sold at
less than half the value that was set upon them by
the plaintiff. Several witnesses were examined,who
swore positively that the tools were in actual use at
the time they Were seized by the broker, and one of
the plaintiff's sons stated that he was using the
anvil to make surgeons' scalpels that had been or-
dered. It was also stated that plaintiff had several
orders from customers at the time, but he was un-
able to execute them, and it appeared that when he
applied to the defendant Ward for the restoration
of his tools, he said he should not give them up, and
he might take his own course.
Sergeant Parry, on behalf of the defendant, urged
upon the jury the hardship of his having to defend
an action like this. He was unable to get any rent,
and was compelled to put in a distress, and then an
action was brought against him, in which, even if
he succeeded, he would never be able to get a single
farthing of costs. He said that he should, however,
be able to prove that the tools in question were not
in actual use at the time they were seized, and upon
that ground he should ask for their verdict.
Baron Martin remarked that he had always un-
derstood the law to be that workmen's tools were
absolutely free from seizure.
Sergeant Parry said that in all the cases that had
been decided it was ruled that they must be in ac-
tual use !.-exempt them from seizure.
The defendant Ward was then examined, and he
swore that at the time he made the seizure there
was no fire in the forge, or any work going en, and
he said that if there had been he should not have
seized the tools, as he was perfectly well aware of
the law upon the subject.
Mr. Ribton, in his reply, said there could be no
doubt that the construction of the law was that a
poor man should not be utterly ruined by having
the tools used in his trade, upon which he alone de-
pended for subsistence, taken away from him, and
he submitted that it was nOt necessary that the tools
should be actually in the hands of the person to
whom they belonged, and that it was quite sufficient
to prove that work was going on for which they
would be required.
Baron Martin, in summing up, said he concurred
with the learned counsel that the law should not be
construed too strictly with regard to the tools being
in actual use, and that, if the jury should think
there was reasonable evidence that the tools were
in ordinary use at the time they were seized, the
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £2O.

GORE V. HAMSEY.

This was an action to recoveira sum of money
that had been expended by the plaintiff, as was
alleged, under the authority of the defendant.
Sergeant Slice and Mr. M'Donneli were for the
plaintiff, and Sergeant Parry and Mr. Pierce for
the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action, it appeared, was a
respectable young woman, who had for several years
been in the service of a nobleman as cook, and upon
leaving that service she was engaged in the same
capacity in the establishment of a lady named Cope,
at Highbury. The defendant was also young, and
he assisted his father in carrying on the trade of a
butcher in the same neighbourhood, and he was in
the habit of calling at Mrs. Cope's for orders ; and,
as is not unfrequently the case, under such circum-
stances, he and the plaintiff became on very inti-
mate terms, and according to her statement he pro-
mised that when his father set him up in business,
which he had agreed to do, he would marry her.
The consequence of all this was that the plaintiff
found herself in the family way, and in July last
year she wrote to the defendant telling him that
she was such a size that people were beginning to
take notice, and she left Mrs. Cope's service, and
obtained another situation with a lady named Els-
worth, where she thought her condition was not so
likely to be observed. While she was in the service
of this lady it appeared that the defendant gave the
plaintiff a ring to wear, and he told her to inform
her mistress that she was married, and she did so;
but at length it became necessary that preparations
should be made for the reception of the young
stranger, and the plaintiff asked the defendant what
she was to do ? He told her he could not marry her
then,but be knew she had some money in an old stock-
ing, and he said that if she took a lodging and fur-
nished it he would repay her the money, and he at
the same time promised that, when his father set
him up in business he would marry her. Upon the
faith of this promise the plaintiff furnished a lodg-
ing at Islington, and expended about £3O for furni-
ture and other necessaries, and she went to this
lodging, and was confined there at the end of Sep-
tember, and in the beginning of October she
announced the fact to the defendant in the follow-
ing terms :—" Dear Henry,----I have got it over. I
have got such a fine son for you. He is much like
you. I had a very bad time, and began to wish I
was in heaven.—Your loving Emma." The plain-
tiff in this letter also begged the defendant to come
and see her and the child, but he did not go near
her, and upon her meeting him shortly afterwards,
and inquiring what he meant by treating her in
I such a manner, he only laughed at her, and refused
to take the the least notice of the baby that was
atraestented to be so much like him. Upon these
n
cover 1;,,,6 plaintiff brought the present action to re-
directio ek the money she had expended by the
Serse4the defendant.
submitted thrtrY, at the close of the plaintiff's case,
itbf:a re
Bvsdtet,aadhrr;od
there
t h the w case.a s
a
that the arratte'ltno contract had been proved, and
°fent referred to was merely one
bastardy
support
law
the
,:otil:astard child, which by the
Martin said he was bound to maintain.
bastardy law had nothing
simple"' Plaintiff was to be be-
anddefendant that it"Zment between her
would repay her the" bought certain
was clearly entil"eY she had ex
pended, and she_ titiee. to If
thin gtshhee
d tt d• e Was
44undefended
the agreement was a
action.
Sergeant Parry said be had no answer `'Pon the
merits.
The jury then returned a verdict for plointi
for the full amount claimed, and his 10rdshrpft.
dered immediate execution.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, Aug. 16.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Air. Justice Blackburn.)
TIIE ALLEGED MURDER AT NEWENT.—The
trial
of Hannah Thurston, John Thurston, and Mary
Ann Thurston, mother, son, and daughter, charged
with the murder of the child of Hannah atNewent,
was concluded last night between eight and nine
o'clock, when the jury, after consulting an hour,
found the prisoners not guilty of the murder, but
guilty of the concealment of birth.
On being asked, in the usual form, if they had