The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-06 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

BREWER V. LEWIS.
This was an action brought to recover damages for an
obstruction of the light from a window in the house of the
plaintiff by a shed erected by defendant. The plaintiff was
the owner of a public-house called " The Hollybush," at
Enfield. The defendant occupied the adjoining house.
Between forty and fifty years ago the plaintiff had opened
a window in the wall of the public-house, overlooking the
garden of the house in which defendant now lives, and
which was then possessed by a Mr. Nicholson. When the
house came into the occupation of defendant he proceeded
to erect a shed, the back of which completely obstructed
the light from the window in question,
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS, for the plaintiff, contended that
the window having been allowed to remain for considerably
more than twenty years, the plaintiff had acquired a pre-
scriptive right to continue it.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD appeared for the defendant.
The Jury found a verdict for plaintiff. Damages.
One Shilling.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY,

CROFT V. THE EARL OF EGMONT.
Th defendant in this case was outlawed in 1828, at the
suit of Mr. Croft, and a writ of inquiry was now issued to
ascertain whether since that time any person had any, and
what amount, of property belonging to him, which the plain-
tiff would be entitled to seize.

Mr. Tarbox, clerk to Mr. Hammersley, banker, was
called to prove the amount in the banker's hands. He

wished to know, previously to being sworn, whether he was
obliged to give fresh evidence, as he had already been a
witness in one case, in consequence of which 1,2001. had
been paid into the Court.

The UNDER-SHERIFY said this was a fresh writ, and the
Court could not take notice of what had previously taken
place.

- Mr. Tarbox then deposed that on the 12th September
the amount of the balance in favour of Lord Egmont was
equal to 1,2.50/.

The Jury, under the direction of the Court, returned
verdict to that effect.

BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.

A young man, named John Edwards, described as a
bookseller residing at Banks'-row, Gravesend, was charged
with the following robbery :
Mr. George Canton, surgeon-dentist, 40, St. Martin's-
lane, stated, that at half-past six o'clock yesterday evening,
he was standing opposite to Exeter Hall, accompanied by
his wife and daughter, trying to obtain an entrance to wit-
ness the performance of the oratorio. There was a num-
ber of people standing on the pavement for the same pur-
pose, and he suddenly felt a hand at his waistcoat pocket,
which, on turning round, proved to be that of the prisoner.
He instantly charged him with stealing his watch, which he
resolutely denied, and ran away. The prosecutor imme-
diately went in pursuit, and found no small difficulty in
keeping his object in view, as he held his head down while
he passed under the coaches and other vehicles which were
waiting for the company ; but at length having captured
him, he forced him into a passage until constable Croucher
121 F arrived, who conveyed him to the station-house.
The prisoner, after making a rambling defence, denied
the charge, and he was fully committed for trial.