The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-11 00:00:00

KILLED.

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1836.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS D

DOE DEM. PRIOR V. PIPER.
This was an action of ejectment. The cas;y
Mr. PLATT. In the year 1777 a grant of a large tract of land
in Kennington was made by the officers of the Duchy of Corn-
wall to Samuel Freeman, upon the lives of Sir William Clay-
ton, George Clayton. and William Medwin. The last life
( Sir William Clayton) fell in, in 1834, without any renewal
having been made. Ihe land had in the meantime been co-
was stated by.
vered with buildinffs. There were a great number of tenants,.
and a scramble took place amongst them, for the purpose of
obtaining a lease of their own premises. Mr. Prior unfortu-
nately lost his own house, but in order to make up for the
loss, the Duchy granted him a lease of the house in question,
which was in the occupation of the defendant. Mr. Piper,
however, set up some claim to the house, and refused to give
up posseslton, and the plaintiff was obliged to bring this ac-
tion for the reco‘ery of his property.
The lease was put in. It was dated ",lst May, 1833. It
described the property as Chester Cottage, in the occupation
of Mr. Piper. and numbered 38, late No. 10, in Chester-
street, Kennington.
Mr. CUANDLEss, for the defendant, would show that the
plaintiff had not such a perfect right as his Learned Friend
bad attempted to show. He would prove that Mr. Prior had
negociated with the officers of the Duchy of Cornwall for the
lease of the house in question, which he had built, and which
he had occupied for many years. He would prove that he
had got the promise of a lease from the Duchy officers, and
had actually paid the fine for the renewal. He would also
rove that the description of the property in the lease was in-
correct, for the property in question was always known as
No. 11, until the alteration in the numbers took place.
When the Jury found that to be the case, he was sure that
under the circumstances, they would find for the present Oc-
cupant and builder of the house. Supposing that he should fail
in that defence, he would then show that the plaintiff
was premature in his action, for so late as June last he had
acted in the character of landlord of the premises. He had
then sent in a broker, and demanded rent; having done so,
he was not entitled to bring such an action, no notice to give
up the premises having been given.
The Learned Gentleman proved these statements ; but the
Learned Judge held that the description in the lease was suf-
ficient, and that no rent having been paid, and no
distress having been made, that line of defence must also fad.
Verdict for the plaintiff. regular

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT•

(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
John Carter was indicted for burglariously breaking Odd
entering the dwelling-house of J. Glover, at the Coach and
Horses, Ilford, Essex, and stealing therein 31b. of cigars, and
divers other articles and money, his property.
The wife of the prosecutor stated that on the 6th of AP.ri_i
they retired to bed at the usual time, and in the course of tn!
night she heard a noise. Upon going down they found that
the house had been entered, and the bar and other rooms rail'
sacked of a vast deal of property and money from the till, no
part of which has since been recovered, except an umbrella-
The prisoner called at her house the day before the robber'',
and witness served him with some refreshment.
Mr. Wm. Webb, a builder, stated that he lodged at the
Coach and Horses on the night in question. He left his great
coat and umbrella in the parlour. He was awoke early in the
morning, and found the house had been broken, and his Prc".
perty gone; has seen the umbrella since. •
Thomas Shellswell, a constable, stated that he apprebeaded
the prisoner, when he found the umbrella now produced, ant
owned by Mr. Webb, the last witness. The prisoner said
was his own. (The witness produced a number of skelet°a'
keys, jemmies, crow-bar, screw-driver, a dark lanthorn, an
a pistol, which he also found on the premises.) He had since
applied the crow-bar to various doors on the premises enter'
and it tallied exactly with all the marks.
The prisoner, when called upon for his defence, said but
bought the umbrella from Sarah Jones, in Whitechapel, u"
she did not appear to confirm the statement.
Mr. Justice PARKE summed up, and the Jury returned a
verdict of—Guilty of stealing, but not of the burglary.
The prisoner was again indicted for burlariously entering
the dwelling-house of Charles Barritt, ands tealing therein I)
quantity of apparel, plate, &c., his property.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty—Death.