The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

--
COURT OF CHANCET?Y, DEC. 5
HUNIPIIREYS PENPAM.

In this case his Lordship gave judgment in the course of
the last Term, awl it was now mentioned for the purpose of
apportioning the costs in the several suits. The LORD
CHANCELLOR, after a protracted discussion, said that as
the Vice-Chancellor in dismissing Humphrey's bill gave
costs to the other side, he thought that as the decision was
now reversed the appeal must be allowed with costs.

Co UR T OF KING'S BENCH, Di. c. 5.

nonEwrs V. SNOW.

In this case, which was not concluded yesterday when we
went to press, the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff
—Damages, lON.

BLAU): V. WOOD.

The plaintiff was one of the proprietors of the grand
stand at Epsom. The defendant was a baker in that town,
and this was an action for money lent on an account stated..
The defendant denied his liability. On the 3d of June
last (the settling-day for the Derby) the defendant was at
Tattersall's, when a man, said to be named applied
to him for a bet of 601., which defendant had lost to
Wigfall on the Derby ; the defendant said to plaintiff, " I
am beset by a man for a bet of 60/., will you lend me the
money ?" to which plaintiff answered in the affirmative,
and did lend him six notes of 101. each. The plaintiff and
defendant afterwards went into the Turf Coffee-house,
where the plaintiff asked the defendant for sonic acknow-
ledgment of that loan. The defendant promised to give one,
and plaint;ff wrote on a piece of paper the words, " Mr.
John Black, I. 0. U. 60/." to which the defendant affixed
his name in this form, " Mr. Charles Wood, Epsom, Surrey."
'Phis paper was put in evidence. The defence was, that
there was no loan of the sort ; that the defendant had lost
no such money to Wield], and that the whole transaction
was a trick to enable the plaintiff to get from the defendant
a bet which the defendant owed the plaintiff. No wit-
nesses, however, were called to make out this case, and the
Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 60/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 5.
ALLEN AND ANOTHER V. KENNEWELL AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the trustees of the legal
estate of Lord Southampton,lin the vicinity of Euston-square,
New-road, against certain Commissioners appointed under
an Act of Parliament, which passed in 1801, for paving,
cleansing, and lighting parts of the said estate, and against
other persons who had acted under their directions, for the
purpose of taking the opinion of a Court of law with respect
to the right of Lord Southampton to erect a rail or fence
across the carriageway of the northern end of Euston-grove.
At the time of the passing of the Act above alluded to the
property was in the possession of the Dowager Lady South-
ampton, who had deemed it prudent to lay it out into se-
veral streets and squares, so as to cover the estate with
buildings ; and Euston-square had then already been built.
The Act gave certain powers to the Commissioners, and
also provided that the Act should not prevent Lady South-
ampton, or any future owner, from erecting rails at the end
of any streets, which might lead into and upon the estates
of other persons, where no communication of way was open
at the time of the passing of the Act. It was not disputed
that up to 1821 there had always been a fence at the end
of Euston-grove ; but in the course of that or the three or
four following years it was contended on the part of the de-
fendants that there had been no barrier whatever ; that the
road had been used by carriages of all descriptions, and had,
in fact, been dedicated to the public by Lord Southampton.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
Is., and his Lordship to certify.

EXCHEQUER COURT, DEc. 5.
PROCTOR V. LAINSON AND ANOTHER.

This was an action of trespass against the late-sheriffs for
the county of Middlesex, for breaking and entering the
plaintiff's house, and seizing and carrying away his goods.
The defendants pleaded Not Guilty ; that plaintiff was not
possessed of the dwelling-house ; that the goods were not
his property ; and, lastly, they justified, under a writ of
fieri facias. Upon the three first pleas issue was taken.
Mr. MILLER. stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff
was a gentleman of fortune in Hertfordshire, his town re-
sidence being at No. 2, Bolton-street, Piccadilly. The no-
minal defendants were the late Sheriffs of Middlesex; but
the real defendant was Mr. Fowler, a solicitor, residing
No. 3, Lincoln's Inn-fields, as he had indemnified the
Sheriff. The plaintiff, about twenty years ago, married a
lady of respectability in his own walk of life. A circum-
stance occurred which unfortunately rendered it necessary
for them to part. He instituted proceedings in a Court
of Law, and the result was a verdict in his favour for five
hundred pounds. The action had been brought with an ul-
terior object, and proceedings to obtain a divorce were in-
stituted in the Ecclesiastical Court. The suit, however, for
some reason or another, failed. About thirteen years ago,
he came to London, and engaged apartments in a house,
where he formed an intimacy with a lady, who, after
some time, assumed his name, and except that they had
not the sanction, and a legal and religious ceremony,
they were as united. and lived, to all appearance, as
man and wife, In the necessary absence of Mr. Proctor
from town, Miss Ferrers, for that was th© lady's name, oh-
taired his permission to have with her her niece, Jane
Thompson, for company, feeling herself lonesome. Miss
Thompson left in consequence of some disagreement, and
formed some connection, but having incurred sonic debts, a
bill was drawn by her, and accepted by her mother and a
person named Brodie, upon which she was arrested by Mr.
Fowler, the attorney. A second arrest took 'place, and it
was at length agreed that her aunt, Mrs. Proctor, should
join her in giving a warrant of attorney to confess judg-
ment for 74/., the amount of both debts. It was agreed
that the money should be paid by instalment of 15/. per
month. When they were engaged in executing the instru-
ment, the clerk required 21. for the stamp, which they had
not about them, but requested it might be added to the
741. Judgment was signed by Mr. Fowler the very next
day, and an execution was put into the house of Mr. Proc-
tor, in Bolton-street, and his property seized for the secu-
rity of Miss Ferrers, or Mrs. Proctor, as she was usually
called. Of this house, Mr. Proctor had a lease, paid all
rents and charges himself, stopped there whenever he came
to town, bought all the furniture, and had Mrs. Proctor to
live there and take care of it in his absence. Mr. Proc-
tor's furniture was seized, and sold under this execution.
He was in consequence obliged to bring the present action.
The parties seemed to think that he would submit to an
unjust demand, rather than have exposed the painful cir-
cumstances of his early life. He was determined, howe-
ver, to brave them, rather than submit to a speculation upon

his nerves.
Several tradesmen proved having supplied the plaintiff
with various articles of furniture for the house, which were
paid for by him.
Miss Ferrers became acquainted with the plaintiff about
fourteen years ago. She lived with him in Bolton-street,
where she still resided. They first went to live there about
1823, when the furniture was sent in by the plaintiff. It
remained there down to the term of the seizure. Other
furniture, which also remained, was brought from his coun-
try residence. The furniture was his.
Cross-examined by Mr. EnLE—Before 1829 she lived
with plaintiff for some years in the Vauxhall-road. Had
no family by him. Her niece became acquainted with Mr.
Proctor. Understood, but did not know at the time, that
he lived with her neice, Jane Thompson, and had a child
by her. Her neice came to dine with her on Easter Sun-
day, 1835, accompanied by a Mr. Wilde and a Mr. Steele.
Wilde and her niece were invited. Steele was not, though he
stopped.—(A laugh.)
Mr. EaLE—While Proctor was absent, she kept com-
pany in the intervals with Wilde the performer.—(Allaugh.)
Other evidence was adduced, after which the Jury found
for the defendants.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

OLD COURT.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

THAMES OFFICE.

James &ebbing, aged twenty-five, William Searles, aged
twenty•three, and John Coxson, aged thirty-two, were in-
dicted, the two former with stealing a horse and cart, fif-
teen casks, and 1,400 lbs. of butter, the property of Thomas
Webb ; and the latter with receiving one cask and 92 lbs.
of the said butter, well knowing it to have been stolen.
The circumstances of the case have recently been before
the public.
Mr. Justice VAUGHAN summed up, and the Jury found
Stebbings and Searles guilty, and Coxson not guilty.

Dennis Br9an,;;;al-v7hipper, was charged with corn-
matting
several brutal assaults on a variety of persons in
High-street, Shadwell, and with wanton cruelty to a donkey.
Wiltshire, a policeman, No. 249 K, saw the prisoner,
who was very drunk, lift a donkey, which was attached to
a potato-cart, and throw the poor animal with great force
on the ground. He immediately attacked another man
—(loud laughter) and knocked him down. The next per-
son he accosted was a coal-backer with a sack of coals on
his back, whom he pushed into the road. The man fell
in the road, and' the coals were distributed about the
street. He then commenced pushing down men, women,
and children, dealing out blows on all sides, and calling out
clear the road. Witness seized him by the collar, and was
instantly floored by a smart blow on the eye. Whihl he
was on the ground the prisoner gave him a violout kick, and
fell upon him with his kness ott his 10;reast. A gentleman
residing at Islington cline to his assistance, and after a
severe struggle IVith the prisoner he was seourod.
The Prisoner on being called upon for his defence, laughed
and said, faith I have nothing to say.
Mr. 131towm.--,TIIO I have. You will paY a fine of
51. to the 14:,ing, and in default yon will be irokrirPT il
two months in the House of Correction,