The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-10 00:00:00

LAMBETH.

Mr. John Hinchley, Duke-street, Westminster-
road, appeared before Mr. Elliott, to show cause why
an order should not he made by the magistrate to
compel him to deliver up seven chandeliers, of the
value of 151., which it was alleged he had illegally
detained.

Mr. Wooley, from the oflic• of Mr. Sermon, soli-
citor to Mrs. Crockford, attended on behalf of the
complainant, and Mr. Lewis appeared for the de-
fendant.

From the evidence it appeared that Mr. Fleming,
a broker, had levied a distress for rent, on behalf of
Mrs. Sarah Frances Crockford, into the well-known
club-house, in St. James's-street, and which has lat-
terly been called the St. James's Assembly-rooms,
and while the man was in possession, Mr. Hinckley
succeeded in removing seven chandeliers from one of
the grand saloons. The present proceedings were
therefore taken to compel him to restore the property,
or to pay its value, 151.
Mr. Lewis urged various legal objections against
the proceedings. In the first place, he wished to take
the Magistrate's opinion as to whether or not the fifth
clause of the County Courts Bill did not destroy his
jurisdiction in such cases as the present. In the next
place, he should be able to show that the property in
question was over the value of thirty pounds, or double
that over which his Worship had jurisdiction. In the
third place, he contended that the instructions to the
broker, to distrain or levy, were informal, inasmuch
as it was seized by Mr. Sermon, and not by Mrs.
Crockford. And in the fourth place, he was in a
condition to show that the property in dispute was
the boni 1 fide property of Mr. Hinckley, and had been
merely let out on hire to the late occupiers of the
club-house or assembly-rooms.
Mr. ELLIOTT, in reply to the objections urged, said
it was his opinion that the County Courts Bill did not
alter the jurisdiction of the maigstrates—that it had
been sworn to that the value of the property did not
exceed fifteen pounds, and that the defendant had no
right to take away the property while under legal
seizure for rent. There were some points of the case
which required further evidence ; and as Mr. Lewis
requested it, he should adjourn the case to a future
day.
Considerable laughter was created during the hear-
ing of a case, in which John Lloyd, an engine-driver
on board one of the Chelsea steam-boats, was sum-
moned for wilfully damaging a room which he oc-
cupied in the house of Mr. Batchelor, a furniture-
broker, in St. George's-row, near the Elephant and
Castle. _ _

Mr. Batchelor deposed that on Saturday morning
last, the defendant, who had lived for some time at
his house, removed from there, and on examining the
apartment which he occupied, witness was utterly
annoyed at the scene which presented itself. The
house being old fashioned, the walls in the rooms
were fitted with panelling, and on each of these
panels a highly grotesque figure was drawn. The
ceiling was also ornamented. The witness then left
the Court, and in a few moments returned with one
of the panels, which he had removed from the wall,
which bore a drawing in the cartoon style, of a huge,
ill-shapen, terrific-countenanced man. The exhibi-
tion was so truly ludicrous, that it was impossible to
look at it without being provoked to the most exces-
sive laughter, and so it affected every one in the
Court.

Mr. ELLIOTT—What proof have you that it was
the defendant who has caused this damage ? Bat-
chelor—Because, your Worship, there was no person
there to do it but himself. Besides, your Worship,
they must have been done by an artist, and his wife
has acknowledged to me that the defendant is an
engineer and draftsman.—(Laughter.)
Mr. King, a painter, was here called, and said
that the cartoons on the panellings were drawn with
a composition of lamp black and grease, and the or-
namental work on the ceiling by the smear or smoke
from a candle, and it would cost at least twenty
shillings to put the room into tenantable order. ,
The defendant denied being the artist on the occa-
sion ; but his denial was given in such a way as to
leave no doubt on the minds of all present that the
contrary was the fact, and the Magistrate, therefore,
ordered him to pay twenty shillings, the amount of
the injury and the expense of the arrest, or in default
to stand committed to prison for twenty days.