The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-21 00:00:00

NEWMAN V. SAVORY.

This was an action of trespass and false imprisonment,
to which there was a plea of not guilty.
It appeared that the plaintiff was a tollacolldcta at
Newgate Market, and the defendant a butcher. On the
23d of last January the defendant went with his cart to
Newgate Market and left it standing in a line with the
other carts, whilst he went into the market to make pur-
chases. He left two pigs in the cart, and upon his return
the pigs and the cart were gone. Whereupon the de-
fendant, though remonstrated with, gave the plaintiff into
the custody of a policeman, who took him to the station-
house, and thence before a Magistrate, when he was dis-
missed. For that injury the plaintiff brought this ac-
tion, and the jury found a veraict for the plaintiff—da-
mages 50s.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 19.
MORLEY V. GUNDRY.
Mr. Thesiger, Mr. IL Evans, and another gentleman
appeared. for the plaintiff; and Mr. J. Jervis and Mr.
Byles conducted the case for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
a sum of money from the defendant for use and occupa-
tion, meat and other articles, as necessaries furnished and
supplied to his wife.
The defendant, it will be remembered, has, within the
last few months, rendered himself somewhat celebrated
by the manner in which he has assaulted some of the
police upon the occasion of their going to execute a
warrant upon him in his chambers in the Albany, Picca-
dilly, and by his conduct and demeanour at the police-
office subsequently. It will be in the recollection of our
readers also that at the! last Westminster Sessions this
gentleman was convicted of the assault, and ordered to
enter into his own recognizances in - the sum of 1,0001.,
and to find two sureties in 5001. each. Not being pre-
pared with
.the sureties; Mr. Gundry was driven off to
the Westminster Bridewell in his own carriap.
In the present case it appeared that the defendant had
been in the habit of ill treating his wife, whom he had
turned out or doors, after she had for some years, pre-
viously to the alteration in his conduct tolyards her,
enjoyed all the comforts which could be commanded
by a gentleman of considerable property, the posi-
tion in which the defendant stood in a pecuniary
point of -view. . Mts. Gundry, in February last, had
written two letters to her huSband, stating that
unless she received an answer to the contrary within two
days she should return home. Not receiving any com-
munication from the defendant on the 13th of February,
Mrs. Gundry accordingly went to the house, but not
being admitted, she had been compelled to board and
lodge at the plaintiff's, and the present demand was the
result of that fact., Evidence was produced to show that
for the accommodation Mrs. Gundry received at the
plaintiff's, boarding in the house, herself and servant, and
occupying two -bed-rooms and one sitting-room, the
weekly charge of 41. 14s. 6d. was not too much.
Mr. JEavis, on the part of the defendant, took several
objections to various items in the bill of particulars.
Amongst others were charges for moneys paid- by the
plaintiff to tradespeople on account of Mrs. Gundry.
These items were therefore erased from it.
Lord ABINGER said he hoped that each of those par-
ties would bring actions for the recovery of the sums
against the defendant.
Mr. Junvis trusted that if such a course were pursued,
the defendant would give proper instructions, and hang
given them, that he would not then lock himself up from
his legal advisers, as he had done in the present instance.
—(Laughter,) The Learned Counsel then took an ob-
jection to a charge for "coach-hire," as not a necessary.
Lord ABINGER—I do not know that, after having
lived as Mrs. Gundry has been accustomed to do, having
the use of two carriages belonging to her husband, she
should be compelled to walk. I will not say, under such
circumstances, her husband still being a man of property,
that she ought to be obliged to walk.
Mr. TUESIGER said the fact was, that her husband
having got into prison, she had gone to the house to see
that the furniture was properly taken care of.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 281. 16s.

LEWIS V. KING, ESQ.
This was an action against the defendant, a sheriff for
the county of Surrey, for a false return to a writ.
Mr. J. Jervis, Mr. Hoggins, and Mr. C. Jones, ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. W. H. Watson and Mr.
Peacock for the defendant.

wasa.,
The plaintiff issued a writ against the late lessee of the
Victoria Theatre for a sum of 371., which ultimately was
returned by the sheriff endorsed nulla bona. This return
the plaintiff contended was not correct, inasmuch as there
were many articles of property in the theatre. The ques-
tion, therefore, to be tried was whether such goods were
on the premises, and if so, whether they were available
for the purposes of the levy. The following evidence
was then given :
J. Radcliffe—Was lessee of the Victoria ; Mr. Smith
was the landlord ; ceased to be lessee on 9th March this
year ; gave it up to Mr. Smith, receiving back 50/., the
amount of his deposit as security ; the rent was paid,
but not by himself ; knew C. Kerny Nicols, the secre-
tary to the Westminster Discount and Loan Society, in
Buckingham-street,. that person had the management
of his theatre for him, from 16th January to the 9th
March ; Nicols took the receipts of the theatre during
that period. When Nicols took the management he
owed that party between 300/. and 4001. ; witness was
out of the way at the time. He gave Nicols the lease as
a collateral security. Never saw a person of the name of
Gibbard ; never employed him as his attorney. Did
not make a sale of the lease to Osbaldiston. Knew Job-
ling, who was his watchman at the theatre. Knew Cox,
the officer, from whom Jobling came into the theatre
with two executions. After he had paid the executions
by instalments he took Jobling into his service, and he
made himself useful.
Mr. JERVIS—As the leg of an elephant I suppose.
—(Laughter.) Witness—Yes, anything.
Lord ABINCIER—Ho was an actor of all work then ?
(Laughter.) Witness—Yes, my Lord, he made him-
self generally useful.
Cross-examined by Mr. IVATsoN—Jobling was the
• " Blue Peter' who had been spoken of. Ile left the
theatre on the 16th January. The plaintiff is the son of
Mr. Lewis, the sheriff's officer. Maurice Levy had an
execution against him. Several executions were paid
out of the theatre, but not all of them.
John Dale—Was stage-manager of the Victoria Thea-
tre from September to March last. Of course, in that
character he had had the care of the properties. He
had acted, in the capacity of acting manager, in De-
cember, in February, and March, Was sorry to say
he knew Nicols too well. That person took the manage-
ment after the 16th of January. An order was put up
in the hall and in other parts of the theatre, by order of
Nicols, of which the following is a eopy i--
"Arioyal Victoria Theatre.
" Under the entire inanagement of the sole lessee, J. B.