The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-29 00:00:00

time the horse was purchased the plaintiff was distinctly I
told that Mr. Marriott would not warrant the horse, and
the facts showed that such was the case. Where was the
necessity of trying the horse if it had been warranted
sound ? Mr. Marriott had distinctly told the plaintiff
that the horse would not be warranted, and the horse had
been taken away from Yeomans's stables in consequence.
The plaintiff had then gone to Jewell, the foreman
of the Bolt-in-Tun, said he liked the horse, hut that Mr.
Marriott v ould not warrant him. The plaintiff and Jewell
had then gone to Marriott's stables. Jewell examined
the horse, tried his wind, pronounced him sound, and
advised Mr. Cookney to purchase him without warranty.
They afterwards met Mr. Marriott, who distinctly told
Mr. Cookney he would not warrant him, and Cookney
purchased him upon the distinct understanding that
there was to be no warranty. The purchase took place
on the 28th of May, and on the 29th of May Mr. Cook-
ney wrote Mr. Marriott a letter, stating that he had
discovered that a horse, for the purchase of
which he had been in treaty, was waiting
for him at Hendon, and requesting Mr. Marriott to
take the horse back ; this Mr. Marriott refused to do ;
and on the sth of June, he having sold the horse to
Yeomans on the 3d of June for 181., Mr. Cookney wrote
a letter to Mr. Marriott accusing him of fraud, and
threatening him with legal proceedings, unless he re-
turned the 25/. and took the horse back again. With
regard to the wonderful story of the adventure on Haver-
stock-hill, he should prove that on the day of the pur-
chase, Mr, Cookney said he had driven out his wife with
the grey, and was much pleased with his performance.
If he was enabled to prove these facts, he thought he
should fully entitle himself to their verdict. The
Learned Counsel then called Jewell, the foreman at the
Bolt-in-Tun, Mr. Marriott, jun., the son of the defen-
dant, and other witnesses, whose evidence bore out the
statements made in his speech.
Mr. Cookney's letters were then put in and read.
Mr. Sergeant LEDLO W replied at great length.
Mr. Justice PATTESON, in his summing up, charac-
terised the letter of the plaintiff of the 6th of June as
a most offensive letter ; and said that if the plain-
tiff at that time had been of opinion that he had re-
ceived a warranty he would, as a lawyer, in that letter
have told the defendant that he proceeded upon that
warranty instead of charging him with fraud.
The Jury, without a moment's hesitation, returned a
verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—There never was a clearer case.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 27.
PETRIE V. LAMONT AND OTHERS.

This was an action for an illegal distress. The plain-
tiff kept the Canteen at Hounslow barracks, and the de-
fendants are the well-known brewers, Lamont, Stewart,
and Co., with whom were included the brokers and their
assistants who executed the distress by the direction of
Mr. Stewart. The levy was alleged to be made for rent
due, and the main question in the case was, whether Pe-
trie or defendants had the tenantcy under the Ordnance.
The canteen was taken by the brewers, who put in the
plaintiff, and having themselves no profit out of the
premises but that arising from the sale of beer. Plain-
tiff considered himself as the immediate tenant of the
Ordnance, though it would seem that the premises
having been taken in the brewers' name they paid the
rent, and the plaintiff having neglected to repay them,
and other differences having arisen between him and
them, they, assuming to be his landlords, distrained as
for arrears of rent.

A question then arose as to whether Lamont, Stewart,
and 111‘Trevor were partners; and if so, whether the dis-
tress in question was the act of the partnership, involving
the three conjointly, or the act of Stewart alone, for
which he individually was responsible.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff against
Stewart alone. Damages, 901.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 27.
GREEN V. BAKER.

The plaintiff, Ann Green, a domestic servant, brought
this action against her late master, Edward Baker, Esq.,
a gentleman of fortune, living at Lion House, Stamford-
hill, to recover compensation for the injury she had sus-
tained in having been falsely imprisoned on a charge of
felony.
Mr. C. Jones, with whom was Mr. Pearson, ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Thesiger and Mr. Butt
conducted the defendant's case.

William Chambers, police-sergeant 18 N, took the
plaintiff into custody in the evening of the 26th April
last, for stealing a box; he received directions from Mr.
Baker, who had called in the morning of that day, and
given information of having been robbed, and at the
same time giving the address of Ann Green, at the
house of a Mrs. Webb, of Church-street, Newington.
The box was found at her lodging, and she was taken
to the station-house, when she remained till the follow-
ing morning, when she was conveyed before Boyce
Combe, Esq., at Hatton-garden, and discharged.
Cross-examined—Mr. Baker said he did not wish to
press the charge. When he called he said he had missed
several articles and left a paper (put in and read—the
following Is a copy) :—" Ann Green left the service of
Mr. Baker on the 24th of April—missing a strong deal
box, with a till inside—a set of weights from a half-
pound downwards—a new scrubbing-brush—some sauce-
pans newly-tinned, and a silk umbrella.
" Ann Green was sent away before her time, in con-
sequence of leaving a candle burning in her bed-room,
using very bad language, and striking the housemaid and
footman. We also hnd that she sold the kitchen stuff,
although allowed a gratuity a year for it."
Much merriment was occasioned by the reading of this
document. Two other witnesses were examined on the
part of the plaintiff ; after which Mr. Thesiger addressed
the Jury for the defendant. He observed that it was
not denied that the box had been taken away, however
trifling in value, which would, therefore, support the
plea of justification.
For the defence Matilda Webster was called. She
stated that she was formerly housemaid to the defendant;
remembered the plaintiff living there as cook ; the latter
was discharged on the 24th of April ; witness brought
the box from the plaintiff's room into the hall, and she
took it away.
Cross-examined—Has left the service of the defend-
ant. When she brought the box down she did not
know it was that which had been kept in the kitchen.
There was a lamp in the hall at the time. Could not
say whether it was lighted, or whether she went up stairs
with a candle. Believes it was light enough without.
Cannot say whether it was seven or nine o'clock. Has
quarrelled with the plaintiff. There were faults on both
sides. Both had given warning, though witness staid
there; several months afterwards. Master was in the
hall ; he did not say, " There goes one of my boxes ;
d— her, if it is, I'll give her law enough for her impu-
dence." Me only said sbe was " werry himperent."
There were four servants—cook, housemaid, footman,
and odd man. _ _ _

Edward Baker, defendant's son, stated that the plain-
tiff had acknowledged her having taken the box when at
Hatton-garden, and requested him to intercede with his
father, as she had no father or mother. Cross-examined
—Believes she is 40 years of age.
The box was produced to the jury, and excited much
aughter, as it resembled an old candle-box. It was said
t be 40 years old.
r. C. JONES replied at considerable length ; and the
Learned Judge summed up, giving an intimation that,
however slight the value of the box, if feloniously ab-
stracted, the plaintiff's imprisonment was justifiable.
The Jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, gave a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 201.
Lord AIIINGER—That, gentlemen, is your verdict, not
mine.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 27.
IN RE GEORGE WILLIAMS.

In this case the bankrupt appeared in Court on his
adjourned examination. He carried on very extensive
business as a wholesale and retail linen-draper, both at
Aldgate, in London, and in Kingston. His debts and
liabilities amounted to upwards of 12,0001.
Mr. SOLE, the solicitor to the assignees, objected to
him passing his final examination on the ground of not
having produced a satisfactory account to the assignees,
and not handing his books into Court. Goods to the
amount of 6,000/. had gone down to Kingston, and no
books were produced to show the result of the sale.
In reply to the Learned Commissioner, the bankrupt
stated that he kept his books rather irregularly latterly.
in consequence of numerous arrangements he was making
in Kingston.
The LEARNED CostmissiosErt—The fact of your hav-
ing numerous arrangements on hand renders you the
more culpable for any negligence of your books.
Mr. Isaacs, the bankrupt's solicitor, said he (the
bankrupt) had done everything in his power to render is
satisfactory account to the assignees, and he believed
even that Mr. Edwards, the official assignee, was satisfied
with the evidence which was adduced at the last meet-
ing is support of the bankrupt's statement.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said it was idle for any
one to talk of rendering the best account they could of
their estate, when they neglected a proper attendance to
their books. Some trades or callings might be carried
on without books, but of all others that which the bank-
rupt followed required most attention to these matters.
Upon looking over the profit and loss statement rendered
by him there was for the amount of certain goods bought,
a sum of 28,0001., and in the continuous statement, he
saw that on 12,0001. of those goods sold, the profit
amounted to only 1501. Such a statement no man would
believe, unless he had it in black and white in books re-
gularly kept. He should, therefore, adjourn the exami-
nation sine die.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
The justice-room was crowded with commercial men
in consequence of the understanding that a full examina-
tion of Jose Joaquim Gonsolo Basto, charged with hav-
ing stolen wine warrants of the value of 6001., and eight
Portuguese bonds for 500/. each, would take place.
Mr. Humphries attended for the prosecutors, and Mr.
Clarkson and Mr. Sadgrove defended the prisoner. Both
the wine warrants and the Portuguese bonds had been
placed in the hands of Mr. Jackson, of Piccadilly, who
advanced money to a Mr. Campbell, an acquaintance of
the prisoner, upon them. The evidence entered into
upon this examination occupied a considerable time.
Richard Jackson, of No. 45, Piccadilly, stated that he
saw the prisoner for the fiest time on the 12th instant.
He knew a Mr. Campbell, a wine merchant, of Mark,
lane, who was in the eat ly part of the year indebted to
him upon a bill of exchange and partly for cash. About
the 17th or 18th of March he had a bill from Mr.
Campbell, drawn by J. J. G. Basto, for the sum of 120 L,
which was not paid. On the 29th of September Mr.
Campbell brought to him four Portuguese bonds and
deposited them with him, and witness advanced to
Campbell upon the bond at that time 100/., and sub-
sequently 921. 15s. Mr. Campbell afterwards brought
him four other similar bonds, upon which he advanced
the sum of 6331. 15s. An account was settled between
Mr. Campbell and witness, leaving the former in-
debted to the latter, 1,0001. On the 12th of November,
in consequence of an advertisement witness saw in the
newspapers, he sent to Mr. Campbell at Mr.