The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

S:r Francis Burdett and his daughter Miss A. B.
Coutts were seated on the bench.
Lord ABINGEft took his seat on the bench at half-
. past nine o'clock, and the trial immediately commenced.
It was an action by Mr. Dunn, a barrister, against the
defendant, a gentleman residing near the Regent's
Park, to recover damages for false imprisonment.
The plaintiff conducted his case in person, and after
a lung addreis to the Jury, in the course of which he
stated that the defendant had given him into custody
without any sufficient ground for so doing, called a
policeman, who stated that in the month of June last,
the defendant gave plaintiff into his custody on a charge
of having knocked at his door and created a dis•
turbance.

Witness took plaintiff to the station-house, and
afterwards before Mr. Itawlinson, the Magistrate, at
Marylebone Police Office, by whom he was held to
bail to keep the peace.

Miss A. B. Coutts was next called, and after
stating that she called at the house of the defen-
dant, followed by plaintiff, said the latter was given
in charge by the former, in consequence of his insisting
upon seeing her after she had entered the defendant's
house.

On her cross-examination by Sir FREDERICK POL.
LOCK, she detailed at great length the annoyances to
which she had been subjected by the plaintiff, and
with which the public are fully acquainted. She
then stated that on the day in question, she was walk-
ing in the Regent's Park, with a female friend, when
she met the plaintiff, who again annoyed her with
his importunities, and to get rid of him she went to
the house of the defendant, a friend of her father's,
where she obtained admittance, and informed him of
the plaintiff's conduct towards her. She had been
there but a short time, when the plaintiff knocked at
the door, and insisted upon seeing her. The defendant
endeavoured to persuade him to go away, and on his re-
fusing- to do so, gave him in charge to a policeman. The
witness, after again alluding to the plaintiff's conduct to
her, her having exhibited articles of the peace against him
at the sessions, and other proceedings which she had been
compelled to take in consequence, said that the con-
duct of plaintiff had created in her mind a feeling of dis-
gust and abhorrence towards him.
Mr. Ravrlioson, the Magistrate, proved that the
plaintiff was brought before him, in custody, on the
charge above stated, and that he ordered him to find
bail to keep the peace. The plaintiff wished Miss
Coutts to be present at his examination, but he (wit-
ness) did not allow it, because plaintiff had said that if
she were examined he would " work her guts for her."
Sir F. POLLOCK addressed the Jury at great length
on the part of the defendant.

Tho Jury after a short consultation returned a verdic
:or the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEN. 6.
k Before Mr. Justice ERSKINE and a Special Jury)

MEYERS V. STUBBS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, to re-
cover from the defendant, a messenger of the Court of
Bankruptcy, the value of a quantity of furniture illegally
seized, and sold under a fiat of bankruptcy. This case
has occupied the Court for two days.
Mr. Thesiger, Mr. Sergeant Channel, and Mr.
Chambers, conducted the plaintiff's case ; Mr. Fitz.
roy Kelly, Mr. Humphreys, and Mr. Hoggins, repre-
sented the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff was in the upholstering
business, having an establishment for the manufacture
of goods in Wentworth-street, Whitechapel ; and an-
other for the sale of them in Skinner-street, Snow-hill.
In the early part of the year 1889, a person of the
name of Edwards had received an order from a Mr.
Godsell for the furnishing of the Torbay Tavern, at
Greenwich, the amount of which exceeded 100/.
Not being able to execute it himself, he brought it
to the plaintiff, Meyers, who then took Edwards
into his employment, and placed him as a manager
over both his establishments. Edwards very soon
became embarrassed, and was cast into prison, and
filed his schedule, but was admitted out on bail. lie
subsequently became a bankrupt in the month of Sep-
tember, 1839, and, not obtaining his certificate, he told
his assignees, that so far from being Meyers' (the
plaintiff's) agent and manager, that the establishments,
and all they contained, belonged to him, under an
agreement that he was to pay Meyers 20 per cent.
Consequently the defendant, under the fiat, seized the
goods in both the establishments and removed them for
sale to auction rooms, and subsequently the greater
part of them were removed to Edwards's residence, in
Old-street, to sell them, as the agent of the assignees.
On being seized the plaintiff offered an indemnity to the
defendant which was refused. He then sent appraisers
to value them in the auction rooms, and they were pre-
vented from doing so by the assignees, but they sent their
own appraisers, who only valued them at 7601. For the
plaintiff numerous witnesses were examined, who proved
that the materials of the furniture were purchased and
paid for by Mr. Meyers, the plaintiff, and Edwards was
only his agent. For the defendant, Edwards was called
who swore that the furniture was his under an agree-
ment, and that he was not the agent of Meyers ; but
on his cross•examination he admitted that he stated so
in the schedule filed in the Insolvent Court, and in a
deposition of his sworn to before a Magistrate that he
acted only as the manager and foreman of the plaintiff,
Meyers, both of which were put in evidence ; but he
now stated that what he had sworn before the Magis-
trate was false.

Mr. 'FiII:SEGER having replied, the Jury said that
they would not troble his Lordship to sum up the evi-
dence, as their minds were made up to find for the
plaintiff ; but they begged to retire for a few minutes to
calculate the interest and to make some little deductions.
His LORDSHIP concurred in this verdict, and told
them they could find for any sum which they thought
was a fair compensation for the injuries sustained by the
plaintiff.

The Jury retired fur a few minutes found a verdiei
For the plaintiff, damages 1,200/.

BAIL COURT, FEM. 6.
PARRY V. KELLY.
FAILURE OF A THEATRICAL SPECULATION.—Mr.
PLATT, for the plaintiff, seated that this action was
brought by a comedian of considerable eminence in his
profession, against the celebratenliss Kelly, an actress,
of whom the jury must frequently have heard, for breach
of contract. It was, perhaps, pretty generally known
that the defendant, a few months since, with a view, as
she stated, of restoring the purity of the drama, opened
a threatre in Dean•street, Soho, under the usual li-
cense from the Lord Chamberlain. Bills were duly
i.isued and publicly placarded, announcing her intention
to open such theatre, and the object she had in view in
so doing. It was also intimated that the Duke of De-
vonshire patronized her undertaking ; the 18th of May
was fixed upon for the opening. It was, however, un-
avoidably delayed until the .sth, when it opened with
The Sergeants' Wife and The Midnight hour. Be-
fore, however, proceeding thus far, it appeared the
defendant engaged a company of performers, amongst
whom the plaintiff, telling the ladies and gentlemen so
engaged that she intended taking the theatre for two
months as a speculation, and engaged them for that pe-
riod. Unfortunately the speculation proved a bad one,
and Miss Kelly closed the theatre on the following
Friday night, having kept it open three nights only.
She announced thin determination on her part to the
performers on the Fr:day night, and on the following
clay the plaintiff, who had been engaged by the defend-
ant at a salary of 71. a week, was paid only 51. 165.8 d.,
that being the proportionate sum for the number of
nights which the theatre had continued open ; and the
defendant having refused to pay him his salary for the
period for which she had engaged him, he was under
the necessity of bringing the present action.
The following witnesses were then called on the part
of the plaintiff :
William Bunn stated that, in consequence of instruc-
tions he received from the defendant, he introduced
plaintiff to her, and she engaged him to perform at her
theatre. He understood the engagement was for seven
weeks.

Cross-examined—Witness was a perfornae,and en-
gaged at defendant's theatre ; hisengagement
the season. lie did not sign any articles. 'rwhe asdf°:
fendant told him she had taken the theatre merely as-
' an oxperiment.
Edward Tumour stated that he was a theatrical
agent. The defendant applied to him in May last,
stating that she was about to open a theatre in Dean-
street, and requested ho would engage a company of per-
formers for her. She said she should want them for
six or eight weeks only, as she was only going to open
the theatre as an experiment. She afterwards told wit-
ness that she had engaged the plaintiff.
Mr. Thompson, an actor, proved that he had pre-
pared the play-bills of the defendant's theatre, in which
the plaintiff's name was mentioned as one of the per-
formers.

Mr. Fairbrothcr, a printer, proved that be was em-
ployed by the defendant to print the bills in question.
Mr. Morris Barnett proved that he was engaged at
defendant's theatre for a definite period, but that the
speculation not answering, she, after it had been
opened three nights, called the performers together, and
told them that the theatre would not be opened on the
following evening, and that she had no further occasion
for their services.
Mr. M. D. HILL addressed the Jury for the defend-
ant, and contended that the defendant was not liable to
the present action, she having fairly told all the per-
formers, at the time she engaged them, that she had
taken the theatre merely as a speculation,—that she
hoped to be able to keep it open for six weeks or two
months, and if the speculation answered, she would, at
the end of that time, give them all regular engage-
ments. The speculation failed, and she paid all the
performers every farthing they could justly claim of her,
viz., their salary for the number of nights they had
performed. The plaintiff was paid in that way, and be

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEn. 6.
DUNN V. ALEXANDER.
The trill of this cause excited the most extraordinary
interest. Long before its commnrcement he Court
was crowded to excess.