The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-13 00:00:00

ADAMS V. TIIOMPSON.

• The arguments in this case having been concluded to-
day, his Lordship directed certain inquiries to be made
before the Master, for the purpose of ascertaining the priori-
ties of the claims upon the property in question.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord DENMAN and a
Common Jury.)
NEAT.E V. EVANS AND ANOTHER.

Mr. PLATT (with whom was Mr. STEER), stated the
case. It was an action for a trespass in breaking and en-
tering the plaintiff's house, and turning out the family.
The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Neale, rented a house in
Beaufort-buildings, Strand, of which the defendant, Evans,
who was the landlord, was desirous of obtaining possession,
and for that purpose he proceeded there at about twelve
o'clock on the night of Saturday, the 18th of June, assaulted
Mrs. Neale, and a policeman being attracted by the noise,
the party were taken to the station-house, where the plain-
tiffs were locked up till the Monday morning following,
when they were discharged. The defendants, Evans and
a Mrs. Wood, who was the former occupant of the house,
retained possession, and refused to allow the plaintiffs to
enter again, or to allow the children, who were in the
kitchen, to leave the house till the following Monday. The
charge of assault and imprisonment of the children had
been tried at the Westminster Sessions.
The daughter of the plaintiff, a young girl about fourteen
years of age, deposed to the assault committed by Evans
upon her mother, who immediately opened the window and
called a policeman, and charged Evans with the assault, but
the policeman refused to take him into custody as he had
not witnessed it. She heard that the defendant. Mrs.
Wood, who was the former tenant of the house, kept it as
a common brothel. Her mother never kept an improper
house, so far as she knew. The parlour and first floor were
let to ladies. She did not know how the lodgers supported

themselves.
Police-Sergeant, William Randall, was attracted by the
noise and crowd, and Mrs. Neale cried out, " take that
fellow," pointing to Evans, " into custody—he has assaulted
me." The neighbours said the house was an intolerable
nuisance. He knows the house to be a brothel.
Policeman William Clarke accompanied the plaintiff on
the following Monday to his house. Evans was inside in
possession, and the doors and windows were fast. He al-
lowed witness and plaintiff to go inside, and wanted to
fight Neale. The house is an improper one.
William Cramp received instructions about retaining pos-
session from Evans and Mrs. Wood. He remained in pos-
session five days, during which time all the furniture and
fixtures were carried away.
Mr. THESSIGER (with whom were Mr. Adolphus and
Mr. Dunbar), addressed the jury for the defendants. A
more trumpery or disgraceful action it had never been his
lot to witness, and he regretted that the case had not been
allowed to end where it had commenced at the sessions.
The defendants had been on that occasion fined, the one in
the sum of 51., and the other in the sum of 50s. for having
acted as he (Mr. Thessiger) admitted, illegally ; but from
a desire to get rid of tenants who had converted the house
into an improper one, and had rendered it a nuisance of
which it appeared the whole neighbourhood complained.
Ample justice had been done to the complainants on that
occasion. Neale and his witnesses had been examined, and
the present proceedings had been merely instituted for the
purpose of harrassing the defendants, and putting costs into
the pocket of some person who was urging the party on to
these proceedings. The Learned Counsel, after comment-
ing upon the evidence for the plaintiff, submitted that,
under all the circumstances, they were not entitled to more
than nominal damages.
Mr. DUNBAR was about to address the jury for the de-
fendant Evans, but Mr. PLATT objected, and
Lord DENMAN decided that, according to the practice
of the Court, where the defendants joined in their plea, two
Counsel could not address the Jury.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Si.

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY

(Before the Lord CHIEF JUSTICE and a Common Jury.

DAVIS V. KNIGHT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
compensation for a breach of contract. The plaintiff had
been employed in the firm of Knight and Reeves, tailors, of
Cornhill, as foreman. On the 26th of March, 1836, the
parties entered into a contract by which the plaintiff was to
travel for the defendants, at a salary of 51. a-week, and the
contract was binding for a term of three years. The plaintiff
went as traveller to Scotland, and in consequence of the view
which the defendants took of the manner in which the plaintiff
discharged his duties in Scotland they, on his return in May,
discharged him from their service. The plaintiff on this
claimed the sum of 8101., being the amount which he was
to receive under the contract for the term of three years,
and the present action was brought to recover that sum.
The complaint made by the defendants was, that the plain-
tiff had been careless in getting orders, and transmitting
them to the house in London.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE suggested whether itwou.ld
oi
not be better to refer the matter to a barrister, tnquire
whether there had been such a degree of neglect and care.