The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-01 00:00:00

Felix Booth's distillery with plaintiff and his son. He
went gently to the gateway and pulled the bell once. A
little boy came out, and returned immediately to the
counting-house, when Mr. Huggins came out and
told him, in a rather animated way, to go
away directly, or he would send for a policeman.
Mr. Horne said he had come for the money that was due
him, and to inspect the books. Huggins crossed the
road, and said, " Policeman, I give this man in charge."
The policeman said he had seen no disturbance, Hug-
gins said, "Do your duty or. I will report you." Mr.
Horne had only rung the bell. He went then, accompa-
nied by the policeman, to the station-house. Mr. Hug-
gins made his charge, and the inspector hinted that it
did not amount to a charge, but Mr. Huggins insisted.
Mr. Horne said he would rather go than be dragged, and
he went to the Marylebone Police-office. The policeman
accompanied us, and the case was dismissed by the Ma-
gistrate. Mr. Huggins said he had found it a great an-
noyance to have Mr. Horne coming to his premises. I
hare gone with plaintiff three or four times in the course
of a week after a quarter became due. I have known
him ring a second time, when a party has come to the
gate, and gone away without giving an answer. I have
sometimes seen a crowd collected, and have heard Mr.
Horne say something to them about his claims. Two or
three days after being brought before the Magistrate, the
260/. was paid Mr. rue. He was admitted to the dis-
tillery two or three days afterwards. I never was before
the Magistrate but once.

John- Champncys, police sergeant, 'recollected the
plaintiff and defendant Huggins coming to the station-
house on the 22d April. Mr. Horne was charged with
treating a disturbance by ringing a bell. Witness directed
he constable to take the parties to the police-office.
James Fell, clerk to the Marylebone police-office—Mr.
Huggins made his charge, he said there was no crowd.
That there was no doubt the 2601. was due, and that he
preferred givint him in charge to applying for a sum-
mons. Mr. Horne was discharged.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then addressed the Jury
for the defendants. He denied that there had been any
attack upon the respectability of Mr. Horne,, or any
desire to defeat his claim by the charge that bad been
made against him. He complained that the plaintiff, in-
stead of taking the advice that had been given him to go
to the defendants' solicitors, and if he had any just claim
to bring an action—he regretted he had not done that,
instead of taking the law into his own hands and creating
a disturbance at Sir Felix Pooth's premises. If Mr.
Horne had any legal right,to go to the distillery and to
inspect the books, and that the parties there thought fit
to exclude him, he had a legal remedy, and should not
have resorted to such a method of obtaining his object.
The defendants certainly conceived themselves justified
in calling a policeman to put an end to the disturbance
and annoyance, and if they were wrong the Jury must
find a verdict against them. He submitted, however,
that the defendants were justified in what they had done,
and that the Jury must find their verdict for the de-
fendants.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, Damages 20L

ADMIRALTY COURT, Nov. 30,
THE LONDON- SALVAGE.

This was a suit instituted to gain recompense for ser-
vices rendered to the brig London, on her way from
Stockton-on-Tees to London. _ _ .

Dr. ADAMS appeared on behalf of the salvors, and
read the affidavits on which the demand was grounded. It
appeared that on the night of the 14th of October, the
brig, when in Gravesend Reach, came into collision
with a steamer, by which her bowsprit was carried
away, and she received considerable damage otherwise ;
in consequence of which she was compelled to be run
upon the Chapman Sands, to save her from sinking. A
steam-tug was passing through the reach at the time,
the master of which, seeing a signal of distress,
flying from the London, Dore down upon her, and, having
boarded, a sum of 71. was offered •' to take her up." At
the time there were several feet of water in the hold,
and the offer was refused by the master of the tug, who
returned to his own vessel, but was signalled back to the
London, when he took her in tow and brought her up to
London. The cargo was worth about 1,4001., and the
brig was 173 tons burthen.
Dr. ROBERTSON followed on the same side.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE, for the owners, denied the
allegation attempted to be maintained, that this was a
case of salvage. It was merely one of towage. With
regard to the term " take her up," which was first used
by the Captain of the brig, that meant to take her to
London, instead of off the sand-bank, as the salvors
wanted to have inferred. The Learned Advocate then
read several affidavits denying the statements contained
in the salvors' allegation, and concluded by saying that
he thought 10/. quite sufficient to be awarded to them.
Dr. LUSHINGTON, after commenting on the affidavits,
said he could not exactly look upon the master and crew
of the tug in the light of salvors ; however, the London
was in some danger, and the sum of 10/. was too little
for the services rendered. He should, therefore, award
the sum of 35/.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 30.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. FAWCET.
This was an information filed against the defendant,
who is a malster, for an infraction of the Revenue-laws.
The defendant appeared in person, and said be had no
defence to snake. He had been wrong in his construc-
tion of a clause in the Act of Parliament. He must con-
sent to a verdict, but he hoped some leniency would be
shown him.
Verdict for the Crown on one count, with a penalty
of 200.

TRODD V. FARNFIELD

This was an action brought to recover damages for in-
juries done to the horse of the plaintiff. The parties
were near neighbours at Woolwich, and in August last
the defendant borrowed the horse in question. While
driving him he had the misfortune to throw him down.
As usual in such causes the evidence (riven for the
plaintiff differed exceedingly from that produced by the
defendant. For the former several persons deposed that
the value of the horse before the accident, was between
21/. and 23/. ; that it was very much damaged, having
both knees broken, an incision on the hock, and had re-
ceived several injuries on the head. That it was so
deteriorated in value as to be worth no more than from
101. to 121., and that it had actually been sold to a Mr.
Parsons for 41. 10s., and another horse valued at twelve
guineas. The defendant had
.paid 5/. into Court as the
full compensation for all the injuries done to the horse,
and he produced witnesses who proved that the horse
was not worth more than 121. before the accident ; that
they were very slight, and that making full allowance
for the few days he would be off work, for the farrier's
charge, &c., 3/. would be ample remuneration. It was
also given in evidence that after the transaction between
plaintiff and Parsons, the latter expressed his dissatis-
faction with the horse he had got in exchange for his
own, and wished to annul the bargain, but the plaintiff
refused, saying he would not have his cob back again
on any account, because he had a law suit about it, and
he meant to get 20/. for it.
After an elaborate charge from Baron Gurney, the
Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages 51.
beyond the 5/. paid into Court.
Mr. Erie and Mr. Peacock were Counsel for the
plaintiff, Mr. Petersdorf appeared for the defendant.

BRAUDE V. TODD.

Mr..KNowLEs said the plaintiff in this case was a
hair-dresser, occupying a shop and parlour in Charlotte-
street, Fitzroy- square. He entered upon the premises
in August, 1840._1n the following November the ground
landlord and the plaintiff's immediate one were anxious
to make certain alterations. They wished to remove
the shop door from the private door, and asked the plain-
tiff's leave to make them. There was no compulsion
upon the plaintiff, but, being willing to oblige his land-
lord, he consented, on condition that the whole alterations
should be completed within a week. The alterations
were commenced, but in place of being over in a week,
they were not completed within five or six weeks, during
winch period the plaintiff was totally unable to carry
on his business. He was sorry to occupy- the time o
the Jury with such a case, bat as all recompense was re-
fused, he had no other tribunal to which to appeal for
redress.
Mr. Ravenscroft proved the case. The alterations
were extensive; all the inside of the shop was pulled
down, and no business could possibly be carried on. It
would be but a small business in the hair-dressing line
that did not take ten shillings a day, which was all profit.
lie went to the premises frequently and heard the plain-
tiff ask the defendant for compensation.
Cross-examined—Plaintiff was the father-in-law of
witness's wife. Knew that the defendant had put in a
distress for three quarters rent, the present action was
brought since.
Mr. IIUMFREY said that was one of the most impru-
dent actions ever brought, for these alterations were made
at the frequent and urgent request of the plaintiff,
made
to Mr. Stoddart, the original landlord, whose hair he was
in the habit of cutting, te alterations were made by Mr.
customers
tt
Stoddart, they were made as soon as possible within a
fortnight. Nor was that action ever heard
of until the
applied the
defendant took steps to compel the payment of his rent.
-
Mr. Stoddart believed that it
litwashniemss
who
pp lied to nl the alteration should be made because all the
were much liable to a draught.
Witness
eetanndte wasiits
defendant, but he said he had no money, would have
nothing to do with it, but he had no objection
being done. It was done at witness's expense,
night, and
done in ten days; the front was put up every
the plaintiff carried on his business as usual, lie was
very frequently there, and had seen persons
plaintiff wanted persons dressed
while the alterations were going on. The
the inside painted and papered, but he would have nothing
to do with it.
Cross-examined—Had not said that defendant ought
to allow plaintiff some abatement. Hethe saidalte
alterations
emight
were
him the rent during the time
going on. The alterations he paid for cost him 10b
and were confined to the outside alterations; never heard
that plaintiff had been obliged to take lodgings during
thediarle
mpros Pocockvements.
superintended
the alterations Mr.
Stoddart, who had the men to work full time forwith
candle light, in order to get the job done. The car-
penters were there only nine days, and the shop front
was down only one day.
Richards.—He and his father were employed by
Mr. Dodd to do some inside work in the shop. They
finished in three and a quarter days ; and no customer
who called when plaintiff was present went away unserved.
Mr Knowles having replied, and his Lordship summed
up, the jury found for the defendant.
FEAVER HARRISON.
cods
This was an action for the recovery of 4121.,
for goods
sold and delivered.
Mr. Rn icanns stated that te plaintiff was a woollen
warehouseman, in Friday-streeht. 1' ie defendant carried
on business in that line and others, in Manchester and
London. In July, 1840, the defendant called at the
warehouse of the plaintiff, showed a list of firms upon
which he said the plaintiff might draw for any goods he
purchased. Inquiries were made upon the subject, and
a large quantity of goods, called " Coloured Con-
servatives,' were sold to him.--(Great laughter.) It
seemed by that that even Conservatives might be bought
and sold. However, the plaintiff sold his goods, and he