The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-15 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 14.

(Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice IVlountirr and
a Common Jury.)
HAYWORTH V. BOURNE.

This was an action upon a mortgage deed, brought by
the plaintiff; a solicitor of Beckington in Somersetshire,
against the defendant, a gardener at Frome. It appeared
that the defendant obtained a sum of 1501. upon a mort-
gage of his premises in Warminster-road, and of that sum
50/. principal had been paid, with interest up to the 20th
February 1836 ; and the present action was brought to
recover the interest due from that date up to the present
period, amounting to 261. odd.
For the defendant it was shown that notice had been
given to the plaintiff, that on the 20th February, 1836,
the defendant was ready to pay up the principal due,
amounting to 1001., and requiring the deeds to be de-
livered up. On that day the defendant and a friend
waited upon the plaintiff with 1001. the balance admitted
to be due, but the plaintiff refused to take it, stating that
the deeds were in London, and that he would write for
them, and have them sent down in a few days, adding
that he would not expect to receive any interest after
the 20th February. The money was afterwards placed
by the defendant in the hands of his attorney, Mr.
Whittaker, who called more than once upon the agents
in London, who held the mortgage deed, and offered the
money requiring the deed to be delivered up. The
agents, however, refused to give up the deed until 1501.
had been paid, and the 100/. waslodged in the Bank where
it still remained. The action was now brought to recover
the interest alleged to be due up to the present time.
The Learned JUDGE observed that fortunately for the
defendant in the present action, the only question to be
submitted to them was one of damages. Although he
might have tendered the principal sum due, if he fettered
that tender with any conditions as to the validity of the
deed, in strict law an action would be maintainable for
the principal and interest, even if the party holding the
deed had refused to deliver it up. He would repeat,
however, that it was fortunate for the defendant that the
question was one wholly for the consideration of the
Jury, and they were to say, looking at the circumstances
of the case, as stated by the witnesses, whether the plain-
tiff was or was not entitled to interest to the present time.
The Jury immediately found a verdict for the de-
fendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 14.
WHITE V. NICHOLSON.
The defendant was executor to a person who had been
tenant of the plaintiff, in the occupation of premises in
Bath-street, Newgate-street, and this action was brought
to recover damages for dilapidations occasioned not by
reasonable wear and tear, but by the premises having
been used in an "untenantlike and improper" manner
by the occupant. The declaration set forth numerous
particulars of dilapidation, breakage of window-glass,
and improper removal of fixtures, besides a special breach
of contract, in not restoring the premises in the same
state as when the tenant entered upon them.
The defence was generally not guilty, and Mr. Ser-
geant BOMPAS for the defendant insisted that it was to
be inferred from the plaintiff's own evidence, that there
had been no untenantlike conduct on the part of the de-
ceased, but that the alterations complained of, especially
that of the ground floor, were made for the purpose of
improvement, the plaintiff's own son having admitted in
the witness-box that the change did not deteriorate the
value of the premises. The Learned Sergeant also con-
tended that the window-panes to the value of 101. or 121.
must have been broken whilst the house was unoccupied,
after the termination of the testator's tenantcy.
The LEARNED JUDGE, in summing up, left it to the
Jury to say what part of the fixtures removed was such
as the defendant was entitled to, in consideration of the
sum paid for fixtures at the commencement of the tes-
tator's tenantcy. As the plaintiff had not put in evi-
dence the inventory of fixtures paid for by the deceased,
the Jury must conjecture from the evidence and their
own experience. There was one, however, a partition by
which the cellar was divided into a counting-house and
store, which seemed to be one, the tenant could have
no right to remove. With respect to the alteration of the
shop, or ground-floor, the plaintiff was clearly entitled
to a verdict, if the Jury were of opinion that the agree-
ment bound the tenant to restore the premises in the
same state as he found them. But the amount of da-
mages must be regulated by their estimate of the amount
of deterioration in the value of the premises, or of the
inconvenience or expense to which the plaintiff might
have been put by the alteration. It had been sworn by
some of the witnesses that the alteration was an im-
provement, and that the plaintiff suffered neither loss
nor inconvenience thereby.
The Jury in a few minutes retnrned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages Is.
GRIFFITHS V. ROBERTS.
The plaintiff had engaged with Mr. Lewis (the pub-
lisher) to complete, on copperplate, within a certain
period, a series of views representing the Metropolis, as
seen from the dome of St. Paul's. He engaged the de-
fendant to make the drawings for the purpose, but, in
consequence of the tardiness with which those were fur-
nished, the plaintiff was unable to fulfil his contract, and
accordingly brought this action to recover damages for
the loss which he had thereby sustained.
Mr. Justice ERSKINE, upon hearing the pleadings
read, suggested the propriety of referring the matters in
dispute to an arbitration.
Mr. Sergeant TALFoURD, on the part of the defendant,
expressed his concurrence with the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Sergeant 111EuEwETHER, for the plaintiff, sub-
mitted that the question at issue turned upon matters of
fact, which the Jury were competent to determine. The
defendant had pleaded first—that he had used all due
diligence ; and secondly, that his delay was occasioned by
the visitation of God—namely, by illness, and on these
pleas issue was joined.
Huwever, after the case had occupied several hours,
the suggestion of the Learned Judge was at length acted
upon. The parties entered into an arrangement, and a
juror was withdrawn.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Dec. 14.
An action was brought by Mr. Parry, a Magistrate
and Coroner for the county of Flint, to recover of the
defendant, Mr. Truman, who is a manufacturer at Man-
chester, damages for an assault committed at the late
election for that place. The assault was of a very
serious nature, and the facts, as stated by a con-
stable, were these : The plaintiff and defen-
dant were in the field where the polling-booth
was, when some angry words, which were not
heard by the witnesses, took place, and the defendant
struck the plaintiff several blows, at least a dozen, with a
stick, and caused a wouni in the temple, and knocked
him down, and the defendant struck him several
times afterwards. It was stated by the plaintiff's
brother, who is a surgeon, that the plaintiff was
still suffering from the violence. The only suppo-
sition was that the ill feeling which ran high
between the plaintiff's party (the Hon. Mr. Mostyn's)
and the defendant's had affected the latter to the above
uncontrolable extent.

Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and expressed regret at the occurrence, but urged that
the affair had been much exaggerated.
The Jury returned a verdict for plaintiff—Damages 120 L

EVANS V. BENNETT.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was
an artist, against the defendant, a literary gentleman, to
recoverr the sum of 161. for work and labour done.
celebrity bylil
N • THOMAS, in stating the plaintiff's case, said the
defendant, Mr. T. L. Bennet, was a member of the Lin-
mean thenSoeiet.ad a gentleman who had gained some
he returned
five of severalEn
Histry. publication of several works on Natural
to
oer a loni, residence in the Island of Ceylon
Island, in the gland, and published a work descrip-
tive
in the natural history of the
and illustrationdidwo of which the plaintiff was em-
ployedaiso ir engraver, to the amount
claimed, and tp
anndeomposition. After twelve pages
had been set au
so
the plaintiff
hcil a letter from the defendant,
ivseeveral lithographic engravings
pecuniary resources failing
stating, that owing to
him, and a new edition of sII
mould be
Cuvier's Ichthyology
ngement and classifi-
cation appeared, in whichuituheehrarrann
marked for the sum of 16/., yet
more modern than what
writu c e ,
wasthe work
cation of the orders were
discontinued.
the plaintiff did not seek to recover
lAlthoughcould tphreod
under circumstances of the discoutinuaneoereafthan 71. 55.,
the work.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages. 7/. ss.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 14.
IN THE MATTER OF WM. HITCHCOCK, LINEN
-APER,
OF REGENT-STREET, A BANKRUPT.
The further examination of this bankrupt was re-
sumed this morning shortly after 11 o'clock. The room
was, as on former examinations, crowded, and the
greatest anxiety appeared to be excited to hear the state-
ments of the bankrupt. The bankrupt having been

called in,
Mr. A'SITURST proceeded with his examination as fol-
lows :—What was the actual amount, Mr. Hitchcock,
received by you from Mr. Christopher Leaf for the goods
invoiced by you at 2,8001. am not certain as to the
exact amouut, but I believe it to be 1,8501. On looking
to my book I find it to be 1,7501 I should here state
that Mr. C. Leaf claims to prove on my estate for a sum
of 801, he having advanced that sum beyond the amount
which the goods realised.
Did he sell at those prices with your approbation ?—Yes.
Now will you state what you did with the money, and
the dates when you received it : first the dates when you
received it ?--.On or about August 21, 5001 ; on or
about August 24, 2501. ; on or about the 28th, 5001; on
or about the 31st, 500 1.

Now proceed to answer the first question, what you
did with the money ?—The money was received in Be-