The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 1.
KITE V. GILBART AND OTHERS.
This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff, a
market•gardener, residing in Wick-street, Hackney, against
his landlord, and other persons, for entering his house and
premises on the 11th of October, 1836. On that day the
defendants went-to the house of the plaintiff during his ab-
sence, and having procured a key from some of the neigh-
bours, took possession of the premises, upon which they
left one man. The plaintiff, upon his returning home, was
told that the landlord had distrained for rent ; and in the
course of some days a green-house in the plaintiff's garden
was pulled down, and the materials carried away. There
were several dog-kennels and pig-sties also taken away.
The whole amount of property, as it appeared in the bro-
ker's inventory, taken on the first occasion, was estimated
at eighteen guineas ; what was left was subsequently va-
lued at 11.65. 6d. The plaintiff's complaint was, that the
defendant had taken the law into his owu hands, and acted
with a degree of violence which was quite unjustified.
Sergeant WILDE and Mr. TURNER appeared for the
plaintiffs ; Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD and Mr. BALLS for
the defendants.
In the course of the evidence,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE interfered, and said that
clearly the law would not sanction the taking away of the
greenhouse, which it would be impossible for the defendants
to restore ; the defendants, therefore, must have a verdict
against them as to that amount ; and as he certainly thought
that this was not a case for large damages perhaps his bro-
ther Wilde would consent to some arrangement.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE did not wish to press the case be-
yond its fair and just limits.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—I suppose you will not
allow me to fix any sum ?—The Learned Counsel on each
side assented, and
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE thought that 201. would be a
proper sum.
A verdict for that amount was accordingly entered.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DEC. 1.
Edward Wright, the Servants' Registry-office-keeper,
formerly of Hatton-garden, and late of Hungerford-street,
Strand, presented himself to be discharged under the Act.
He was opposed. by Mr. COOKE, on the part of a poor car-
penter, named James Adams, and supported by Mr.
WOODROFFE.
The opposing creditor became acquainted with the in-
solvent in April last. In consequence of an advertisement
for a collector and book-keeper, he applied to the insolvent
at his registry-office, in Hungerford-street, Strand. The
insolvent told him he wanted a clerk, and it was requisite
he should give security by leaving a deposit. He said he
wanted 201. deposited, and he was told it could be ad-
vanced. He then said he would engage with him at 15s.
a week as standing wages, which, with the perquisites, would
amount to 21. a week. An agreement in writing was en-
tered into between them, by which he (Adams) was to have
half the profits arising out of the house-agency department.
The agreement was produced ; the '2O/. was stated to be a
loan ; and the agreement was prepared before the money
was advanced, the Christian name being only required to
be inserted. He took possession of his situation on the
3d of May, and was paid the first week's salary, and he
afterwards got a few half-crowns. There was no house-
agency profits, and all the business of his master was to
answer advertisements respecting situations. He summoned
him for his wages, but he never got a shilling of the 20/.
The insolvent's debts amounted to 728/.
Mr. Commissioner Lew said the insolvent had cheated
the foolish carpenter out of his money, and then starved
him out of his situation, as it was called. He sentenced
him to an imprisonment of five calendar months.