The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-06 00:00:00

AUSTIN V, HANCOCK.-LANDLOPD AND TENANT.

The plaintiff in this case had rented of the de-
fendant what is well-known in the lace districts as
" standing and power" for certain lace machines—
and he, being in arrears for rent, went out and
locked the door of that portion of the defendant's
workshop where the plaintiff's machines were. The
defendant entered by putting a ladder to the win-
dow, and he then opened the door, no fastening
having been broken. Having done this, the bailiffs
were let in and the machines were distrained for
rent. The plaintiff now claimed damages for it
to the whole amount of the value of the goods ; or,
secondly, for excessive distress, The jury found
for the plaintiff, upon the first ground, for £l5O ;
but if the Court should be of opinion that he could
recover only for an excessive distress, then they
assessed the damages at £4O.
Mr. Sergeant Hayes now moved to reduce the
damages to £4O, contending that the defendant had
a right to enter the premises as he had done, and
the workshop itself never having been demised, the
plaintiff was wrong in locking it against his land-
, lord.

Mr. Justice Williams—But a distress must be
upon the " demised premises," and what were the
demised premises in this case?
Mr. Sergeant Hayes submitted that they con-
sisted of the ground upon which the machines
stood.

Rule granted.
STOTT V. GLENN.--INJUNCTION.

The plaintiff was the owner of a colliery, and he
had entered upon an agreement with the defendant,
who rented a turnpike, that the plaintiff's carts
should pass the turnpike for three years in considera-
tion of a certain quarterly compensation. The de-
fendant subsequently refused to perform the agree-
ment, alleging that he had been induced to enter
into it by a false representation. The present a tio n
was commenced to enforce the agreement, and
Mr_ Justice Mellor granted an injunction to
compel the defendant to allow the carts to pass,
pending the litigation.
Mr. Mellish now moved for a rule to discharge
the order for an injunction, and submitted that the
court would not compel the defendant to act on the
agreement, inasmuch as such agreement was pro-
bably illegal, because it was an arrangement to take
other than the ordinary tolls.
The court granted the rule, suggesting that the
carts should pass as usual, and that an account of
the amount of the ordinary tolls which might be-
come due should be taken.

Rule granted.
KENNEDY Y. BROUN AND WIFE.-THE SWINFEN CASE,

The matter was before the court last term. It
will be remembered that Mr. Kennedy, a barrister,
acted on behalf of Mrs. Swinfen in her litigation in
reference to her claims to the Swinfen estate, the
result of which was that she recovered the property .
Subsequently to this she married Mr. Broun, the de-
fendant, and the present action WP.s brought against
he.• and her husband to recover £20,000 upon "an
account stated," which was founded upon the ser-
vices rendered by Mr. Kennedy. The case came on
for trial before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn at War-
wick, when the verdict was for the plaintiff for
£20,000, but subsequently a rule was obtained to
enter a nonsuit upon certain points of law, or for a
new trial for misdirection, or that the verdict was
against the weight of evidence. The principal ques-
tion of law raised was, whether services rendered by
a barrister can be made the subject of an account
stated. Last term Mr. Kennedy was heard at some
length in showing cause against the rule, and the
case came on again today._
- _ _

The Lord Chief Justice said that he was very sorry
that in consequence of the same judges not being
present now as were on the bench last term, it would
be necessary to begin the arguments over again.
Mr. Kennedy accordingly recapitulated the facts
of the case et great length, and had not completed
the statement when the court rose.
The further hearing was adjourned.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before Sir C. Creswell.)
OAKHAM V. OAKHAM AND OGDEN.

In this case the plaintiff disputed an instrument,
purporting to be the last will and testament of his
cousin, Mr. James Oakham, a retired butcher, who
resided at Wimbledon, Surrey, and possessed con-
siderable property in land and in the funds. The
plaintiff alleged that the testator was not of sound
mind, that the will was not duly executed, and pro-
pounded a prior will.
Mr. W. E. Ward appeared for the plaintiff, and
Dr. Swabey and Mr. Boyle for the defendants.
Witnesses were called, who deposed to the com-
petency of the testator when he executed the will
in dispute, which was dated January, 1855, and by
which he made some alterations in the previous
disposition of his estate, including an increase in an
annuity to his housekeeper. One of the witnesses
said that the lady thanked the testator for the altera-
tion in her favour, to which he replied, " You richly
deserve it." All the witnesses examined in support
of the will testified to the sanity of the testator,
and one of them described him as a very acute per-
son in business matters.

On the other side the plaintiff, his wife, and ano-
ther witness were examined,and merely proved that
the testator had an attack of paralysis in 1855, sub-
sequent to the execution of the will.
Sir C. Cresswell said he regretted that the plain-
tiffs should have spent their money in endeavour-
ing, without any ground whatever, to fix perjury
on respectable parties. He felt bound to decree pro-
bate of the will of 1855, and to condemn the plain-
tiffs in the costs of the suit.
STRAUBENZEE AND WIFE V. MONK.

This was an amicable suit, instituted for the pur-
pose of ascertaining the testamentary validity of
certain papers left by Lady Monk, the wife of Sir
Charles Monk. It appeared that the testatrix, by
virtue of a deed of settlement, had power to distri-
bute a sum of X 5,000. She left Xl,OOO to her god-
daughter, and a specific legacy to the mother of the
latter. The disposition of her property was made
by writing on two separate sheets of paper, which
were enclosed in an envelope, in which she directed
her husband to administer.

Dr. Tristram appeared for the plaintiff, and Dr.
Spinks for the defendant.
Sir C. Cresswell, at the conclusion of the learned
counsel's arguments, said that this was a very im-
portant question, and he should take time to consi-
der his judgment.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Nov. 5.

(Before Mr. Bodkin, Assistant-Judge.)
Wm. Bartram, 18, Wm. Birch, 22, and Ann Rush
bourn, 21, were indicted for feloniously breaking
and entering the dwelling-house of Edward Ro-
berts, and stealing therefrom an opera-glass, a table
cover, and other articles, his property. There was
a second indictment against the two latter prisoners
for a similar offence in the dwelling-house of God-
frey Phillips. The charge as regarded Bartram was
ignored by the grand jury.
Mr. Cooper prosecuted.
defended. The prisonersa
Mr. E. W. Roberts stated that he is
Hackney-accoun-
tant,downs,
and residing at Lansdowne-villas,
Haeecknnefo and 11
and on the night of Sept. 25,
s beectuld. The next
nwere uil
-
o'clock, he saw his premise
morning, about half•past:
found an entrance had
cisock, he was told by
his servants that they
the iron bars of the scul-
been effected by bendii:ll
been strained sufficiently
of a boy. The door of the
lery window, they have
g ass, table cover,
to admit of the P
doorgcould be got at. Upon looking
the key of
lobby also had the glass cut out, and by
the missed an opera- I
basket of plate, three coats, and other articles of
athe value of £3O.
over his place he
John Gardner, police-constable 498 N, said, on
the 29th of September he went to the house occu-
pied
he
ilrveehr
atuhdimßbalers-
panieddtbwyoknives Birch,
andproduced. there
saw tram go out of the door just before went in. Susan Blockett, of 11, North
street, said the pri-
soners Birch and Rushbourn lodged in her house 11
days in September last as man and wife.
A policeman stated that he went to Layton, in
Essex, where he apprehended both prisoners. As
soon as Birch saw him he tried to escape by getting
over a wall, but he was subsequently captured.
Tie Rifiguer Birch crone-examined the witnetigeo 1

„. .
with a considerable degree of ingenuity, and in his
defence he denied that he had anything to do wits
tae robbery.
The Jury found Birch guilty, and acquitted
Rashbourn.

Lockyer, the officer of the House of Correction,
Coldbathfields, said the prisoner has been four times
an inmate of that prison, and had been the regular
associate of thieves for years.
The Assistant-Judge sentenced Birch to be kept
in penal servitude for five years, and cautioned the
female prix: ner as to her future conduct, for she
might share the fate of her companion.
(Before Mr. Payne.)
Ferdinand Wolf, 30, described in the calendar as
a merchant, of superior education, a German, was
indicted for unlawfully assaulting and beating Eli-
zAbeth Jones.

Mr. Pater prosecuted. Mr. Albert interpreted
:he evidence.

From the evidence of the prosecutrig, the wife
of John Jones, a bricklayer, of Grove's-square,
Hackney•road, it appeared that she was with bar
husband and some other persons in the High-street,
Shoreditch, at about 20 minutes past one in the
morning of the 21st ult., and that she stood still for
a short time to attend to her child who was sick.
While she was in a stooping position the prisoner
came behind her, and most indelicately and pain-
fully assaulted her. She called to her husband for
protection, when the prisoner spat in her face, and
said that if he had a knife he would settle her. _

John Jones, husband of the last witness, said
on the morning in question his attention was at-
tracted by hearing screams from his wife, and on
going to the place he saw the prisoner standing
close to her. She complained to him of the manner
in which she had been treated, upon which he
laughed. Witness threatened to give him into cus-
tody, when some of his companions said it would
be no use giving him into custody, as he could make
nothing of it.

Mr. B. Mather, a surgeon, of No. 40, Essex-street,
Islington, said he examined the proseoutrix at
three o'clock, on the morning of the 21st of Octo-
ber, and he found that she had been most roughly
anti violently treated. She was suffering great
pain, and it would be some time before she recovered,
although she was not permanently injured. Great
violence must have been used towards her, and she
was worse now than she was when he first ex-
amined her, as time had developed the injuries.
The prisoner, in his defence, simply denied all
knowledge of the transaction.
The jury, without hesitation, found the prisoner
guilty.
Mr. Payne said that this was one of the most seri•
ous and atrocious cases of the kind that had ever
come before him; and having consulted with the
Assistant-Judge, it was his opinion that the offence
ought to be visited with a severe sentence; there-
fore, the sentence of the Court was, that he be kept
in penal servitude for three years.
The prisoner was then removed, protesting his
innocence.

James Ford and Walter Lang were severally con-
victed of assaults on constables of the metropolitan
police, the former being sentenced to one year, and
the latter to two years' hard labour.

MARKL2S.

-WEDNESDAY.
1 Barley, grinding 29s to 318
Oats, old, .. 27s to 300
New do 22s to 26s
I Beans.. 43s to 45s
) Beans, new.. 368 to 40s
34s to 375.