The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-29 00:00:00

VICE CFIANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN 28.

His Honour the VICE-CFFANCELLOR took ;notions to-day,
but no eaze of and• interest came before the Court up to its
rising.

COURT OF QUEEN'S, BENCH, JAN. 23

(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court was. engaged in heating- arguments on motions of
no interest to any except to the parties more immediately con-
cerned. It wls expected that Mr. Hetherington would Lave
been called up for judgment, but it was postponed till Saturday.

BAIL COURT, JAN. 28.
( liefcre Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
The Court was engaged during the whole of the morning in
hearing motions, none of which, however, were cf any public
interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jas. 28.
(Sittings in Banco.).
MLJNN V. JOHNSON AND OTHERS.

This was an action for trespass, brought by ;ienant against
his landlord and the brokers for an illegal distress. The de-
fendant pleaded a justification under the Statute, rent being
due, and the plaintiff having fraudulently removed his goods
to avoid a distress. The plaintiff's case was that the seizure
took place some days before the rent was due, according to the
terms of the tenantcy. But Mr. Justice Maule, before whom
the cause was tried, left it to the Jury to sar whether rent was
due at the time of the seizure, and whether the plaintiff had
fraudulently removed his, goods? . The Jury answered both
questions in the affirmative, and the verdict was taken for the
defendant, subject to an objection raised by Mr. Sergeant
Bompas for the .plaintiff, that the amount. of rent due was
not proved ; and that his Lordship ought to have asked the Jury
to say, not in a general manner that rent was due; but whether
the specific sum set out in the pleas was proved to have been
due before the seizure. Oa this ground hfr. Petersdorf since
obtained a rule •to enter a verdict for the plaintiff, against
which Mr. Platt this day showed cause, contending that the
plaintiff having admitted in his counsel's opening address that
there was rent due to the amount of 71. 10s., it was not neces-
sary for the plaintiff to offer evidence of that admitted fact.
Mr. Sergeant 1103IPAS, in reply, stated that the verdict was
contrary to the facts, and that if the defendant had been re-
quired to prove the terms of the tenantey, it would have ap-
peared that rent was not due at the time of, nor for two or
three days after, the seizure.
'dr. Pr.arr said that the Jury had found on the evidence
that rent was due, and that the plaintiff fraudulently removed
his goods. But as there was now some doubt as to whether
enough was proved, he was willing on the part of his client to
agree to a stet prOcessus.
The Loan CHIEF-JUSTICE thought the offer a very fair
one. The utmost the plaintiff could expect was a new trial,
for it appeared that on the other side there-was evidence be-
hind, which was omitted through misapprehension. If the
plaintiff had brought th's action for excessive distress, the
goods being stated to be worth 301. and sold for 71., the case
would stand differently.
Mr. Sergeant Bompas, having consulted with his client,
agreed to the suggestion that all further proceedings be staid,
each party paying his own costs, including those of the present
rule;