The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-14 00:00:00

,EVENTING SUN,

had been paid, and the 100/. was lodged 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.
,he
The Learned JUDGE observed that foitunalely for
be
defendant in the present action, the only
qu e
stion to h
t,
submitted to them was one of damages. ithot d
might have tendered the principal sum due, if he fetterbee
that tender with any conditions as to the validity of the
deed, in strict law an action would be maint.
,inable :be
the principal and interest, even if the party ho: ding
deed had refused to deliver it up. He Would Ortio
however, that it was fortunate for the defendant OA' b 9
uestion was one wholly for the consideration O 0
Jury, and they were to say, looking at the circurnsti IL"
of the case, as stated by the witnesses, whether the p
tiff was or was not entitled to interest to the present t *Tr
The Jury immediately found a verdict for the
fendant.

COMMON PLEAS—(THIS DAV
WHITE V. NICHOLSON.
pranises t
The defendant was executor to a person who had been
tenant of the plaintiff; in the occupation of
Bath- street, Newgate-street, and this action was brougbuv
to recover damages for dilapidations occasioned oQt:„'',.
reasonable wear and tear, but by the premises hav;;
been used in an "untenantlike and improper" Otto
by the occupant. The declaration set forth nunieras'
particulars of dilapidation, breakage of wind Z greaeli
and improper removal of fixtures, besides a speetal ";one
of contract, in nut restoring the premises in the
state as when the tenant entered upon them. , 9er.
The defence was generally not guilty, and W-_,l*to
geant BOMPAS for the defendant insisted that it'''
be inferred from the plaintiff's own evidence, that de-
had been no untenantlike conduct on the part of the;Lrly
ceased, but that the alterations complained of, esPec—
that of the ground floor, were made for the purpose,
improvement, the plaintiff's own son having admittte eare
the witness-box that the change did not deteriora the'
value of the premises. The Learned Sergeant also
tended that the window-panes to the value of 101 or
must have been broken whilst the house was unoeculale"
after the termination of the testator's tenantcy.
The LEARNED JUDGE, in summing up, left it %tell:
Jury to say what part of the fixtures removed was ,
tha
as the defendant was entitled to, in consideration °`
sum paid for fixtures at the commencement of ti!eoi.,
tator's tenantcy. As the plaintiff had not put 01 sed,
dente the inventory. of fixtures paid for by the &c
the
the Jury must conjecture from the evidence 11111
~,,by
own experience. There was one, however, a partit4" sor
which the cellar was divided into a counting-houseu- gos
store, which seemed to be one, the tenant could fOO
no right to remove. With respect to the alteration it;tkd.
shop, or ground-floor, the plaintiff was clearly eir:fee.
to a verdict, if the Jury were of opinion that the in
meat bound the tenant to restore the premises 1:f dr
same state as he found them. But the amount eat
mages must be regulated by their estimate of the 3111 to the
of deterioration in the value of the promises, or ipight
inconvenience or expense to which the plaintilA bi
have been put by the alteration. It had been sly°ri ira-
some of the witnesses that the alteration waser loss
provement, and that the plaintiff- suffered Wit'hil
nor inconvenience thereby. t for ill°
The Jury in a few minutes retnrned a vererie'
plaintiff—Damages is.

54
SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS'• trate
An action was brought by Mr. Parry, a*Tofth-.
and Coroner for the county of Flint, to reeolts Dlsr
defendant, Mr. Truman, who is a manufacturer ;he late
chester, damages for an assault committed at ferf
election for that place. The assault was of a on-
serious nature, and the facts, as stated by defer
stable, were these : The plaintiff an,,,,n
dant were in the field where the pow-zo nu:
was, when some angry words, -which
oefolsto
heard by the witnesses, took place, and thepith
struck the plaintiff several blows, at least a doseP,ettee
stick, and caused a wouni in the temple, and '7oyetal.
him down, and the defendant struck bialniiietiff'
times afterwards. It was stated by the,.;„riff af's4
brother, who is. a surgeon, that the P',- safe"
still suffering from the violence. The oulaa b
sition was that the ill feeling which' igos111)
between the plaintiff's party (the Hon. Mr. va
and the defendant's had affected thAe latter to we
uncontrolable extent. rlefendst
Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury for tau--jded Ost-
end expressed regret at the occurrence, but w 04.
7
the affair had been much exaggerated. 00
The Jury returned a verdict for plairatiff---33115"
A .y.)
BAbTKRUPTCY—(THfS 00'
IN THE NATTER OF WM. HITCHCOCK, 1'114E144
OF REGENT-STREET, A BANK car P 1.%, wag rtr
The further examination of this ban kruP,vhe too°
sumed this morning shortly after 11 o'cic ck. tbe
was, as on former examinations, crow rdecl, looter
greatest anxiety appeared to be excited to bear beer
ments of the bankrupt. The bankrupt baT
called in, 0 fefri‘
Mr. SHURST proceeded with his examillatlfirehcee.,"
lows :—What was the actual amount, /tr., the goons
received by you from Mr. Christopher Leaf'e,r as to the
invoiced by you at 2,800/. ?—I am not cerbon loot
exact arnouut, but I believe it to be 1,85'01. t:ae oats
to my book I find it to be 1,7501. I shL•tad De' stio
that Mr. C. Leaf claims to prove on my es tate for sat
noo
of 80/., he having advanced that sum beyond the-
which the goods realised. ?Ifesd.
Did he sell at those prices with your a.pprobatioto-,, se-
, Now will you state what you did with the mone4;yett
the dates when you received it : first the dates wb-00
received it ?—On or about August 21, 5001,-L; or
about August 24, 25G/. ; on or about the 28tb,
or about the 31st, 5001.
Now proceed to answer the first question, "'Al'3l.it re-
did with the money ?—The money was receivird-to
the
gent-street, mixed with other moneys, and ell-iebh-be°-.
general purposes of the trade, as show nin thole; c gOOCIS
Now, as you have sworn that you St Lit °nut: and Glad-
were,
for the purpose of being delivered
stone, and as you do not disclo.se wine tell; got re,a, .11e1
Prtid
ngbeeocttatuhisiiaeenmd Messrs. Cook and Gladstene,w:OottC._o::::atis
benefit from it, and as Cook and u'eLrxistot. if ye- could
viously told you they would give yali whY Yee- be
out,
themand v
ears tilhl Ret
mwasonetyheyortri:ecei, lor t
goods,Th e bwalniaktrsohpotiLledroyosttiadteodwt-hitaht ibt?e
did he ad
101' his
not thin;' this
examination
ins uactihena
of
ftattheamt ednatyymesi tehrtdabye,ja.eittld
.re clu es
Mr. ASHURST having readg the extuninetion the
411
The bankrupt said, my reason for not PaYintgof
ti, Cook and Gladstone was, that it was a P3;suoiriiii,g,l:l-ch
rangel,:ent not to pay any cash, as I was
the cash we could get to meet other engagertl
th the
were more pressOg d. „ vi
Now state when.tht;t arrangement was ni"
the Lae°
and what passed ?—Ear;; in July, at one of t
in the library or drawing-ru,,m. Gladstone'
Who was present ?—Messrs. cook and
Both ?—I believe so. will. jog
Will you swear they were both .00001 • tiv-, dar, it
Now state what was said. —At 'that no,e thea',
Vac conversation relating to the 19,0,90/. 1- oy. t,ievi
would not be desirable for me to pay tirelu to
and that I could get them out better without it,
to
they assented. r IsOP"'"
Now tell me what they said ?--Very well, °
that effect ; or we think so. he °tbel.
Wits that in the presence or hearing 0f t,,sequeat.go
Yes. I rh.;yer did pay them any money 51.,!!'isiness t'
that understata::::ng, although I was in or
months afterwards. clib°l/
to Ise -a
Now you have stated that you been ok
your bills in July, and this conversation Weio sore
July. Now did you not early' in JulY rc;s, 04•
lawyers' letter threatening proceedings ?-„,-.0---A,,rtba
Did you not dishonour your bills in -a-I.°g.; bills °I.
State what part. Did you dishonour Y°""
on th°
4th ?—I think not all. iota° cash'
State what you paid and what you dishol- 4, the • rof
4th ?—The bankrupt said (after looking ,14:',,0ee
off
book), I am unable to state without the asetsn, 0404
clerk, what bills were paider what dishonouroo. Ago
having further time, and the clerk's assistiancest hfer
perceive from my books that on the 4th of i'ailaboer for
paid an acceptance drawn by Johnson awl,. ,andoe ;a,
641. 14a., and also an acceptance in fay.iotuhr forth art
et 7
141. 13s. 4d. Now I am not sure, lv
quiry and reference, whether we did not b°r!;'' raid f
, ~,h
of those monies wherewith to pay them. ;he I°`,.)th,
acceptance in favour of Wheeler and Co., calA the
' in
August, for 161. ss. Our settling day was -4.,"11c" being
and we paid most of our accounts then due,
tba3
number. twelve. Dora° l
r. Asnuasr—Now just state the pro. ay spa}'
bears to the portion you dishonouredY fadslo
proportion. We paid as far as we had the
for
During both months ?—Yes. y
Was no t your brother George at this t
ll it r
you to Mr. Pritchard, the brother of your Ow
both
What time do you reftr to ? Net ia
ce to
y
In Jul and August.—l think not.
months ; .1 am not certain, but I can tell by refaro:l $
my. books. to tate Willa
Will not your cash-book enable You sires, "%1
sums you paid, and when, to Mr. Pritchard.-- we eat
now looking for them. On the 9th of August
200/ to
to Marsden and Pritchard 100/. ; on the lot
°ice
B. Pritchard; on the 18th, 200 i. to R. Pritchar. 00 tbf
21st, 600/. to B. Pritchard, and interest, 31. 17°.; sive °
Ts2huadt.
Io on
et
ihi
ee
v3el, sits,
24th to Marsden and Pritchard, under the
initcharclj
Gandell, 3101 19s. 2d. ;on the 28th, to r„lea
Pritchard ;on the Ist September, .larsden' f /lf
24th °
SI
there is 5201. paid to Marsden and Pritchard for
a 41112,./ 6s. tid , and 140/. to 1110, 55,
C°s
Mr. ASHURST—Go back Itoseteh et that
tt
on the
tJhtel I.Y. ters:4
I see there are two sums paid to thenl,_:tebor
and 701. The amount paid to Marsden and Itril'erth 55
on the 24th of July, per Coster, was paid to he solici;
my solicitors, to settle a debt with Mr. Burt, t
tor of Coster. I think the 701. and the 301 wer;:ago
to them for the same purpose. I had given .0 Pr'
order. which will account for my paying thernteir. lattei
ference to other parties. That was to paY Coster"
next sum, August 9, is 100 L, that was for Iv ""4.ayetirf
Mottram's bill of costs. The balance in '
'lee"
small amount, was placed to my credit.
don't recollect'
What „ay'
What was the amount of that bill ?---I
it was near 100/ The next item, August 10th, ls,",ften
ment of 200/. made to B. Pritchard, gentlernap!.4hieli
ham, being a part payment on account of a
.1011_1„,.s for
was over-due. The amount paid on the 1801 ""
the same purpose. hard 1/i°l'
Pritc
Mr. ASHURST—Did you pay it to ,0
sinroett
11
self, or to Marsden and Pritchard ?-7- r
wbethe
and Pritchard. lam not quite sure , .tcharo
the payments were made to Marsden and 0,1,0 o
Theo
account
txot
fs uam
f,
06rtnnetr,
boinli,thaen2d:3tal
noofth
August'3blo ot h:30_111; eia t,lllo.
were over-due. August the 24th,
was the amount which Marsden and Pritchard rbeeo
Gandell and Co., bill-brokers. I think I
31 Pie In!" 28th
obliged to give them also a Judge's order. 0