The Sun.
London, England, 1823-04-04 00:00:00

SPRING ASSIZES.

KINGSTON, ArRIL 3.
JONES v. WILSON AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought to recover damages for forcibly
entering the plaintiff's house, and taking thence a considerable
quantity of household furniture.
Mr. MARRYAT stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff
was the occupier of a house situated 16, Salisbury-crescent,
near the Kent-road, which he rented of Mr. Bradbury. The
defendants, Wilson, an upholsterer; Benham, a furnishing
ironmonger ; and Turner, a looking-glass manufacturer, had
in October last supplied the plaintiff with a quantity of house-
hold furniture. On the 26th of that month, however, the de-
fendants, with a numerous body of people, collected in front
of Mr. Jones's house. Admittance was demanded, which
being refused, the doors were broken open, and the house en-
tered. The furniture was speedily removed from the pre-
mises, some being let down from the windows, and the rest
taken out at the door. It was for this conduct, the value of
the property, and the injury done to the house, that the action
was now brought.
Francis Sewers called, and examined by Mr. Serjeant
Law Es—l resided at Salisbury-crescent, Walworth. On the
25th October, about nine in the morning, I passed by the
plaintiff's house; I saw there several persons trying to open
the outer gate, in which, after a short time, they succeeded;
the door was broken open by force ; the defendants and others
entered e the goods were brought out by. the persons assem-
bled, some of them were put out at the window : at this time
there were about thirty persons—afterwards from 200 to 500 :•a-
person looked out of the window, and the defendant Wilson
said to him,—" Come down and undo the door, you swindler V'
then addressing the mob, he said, " there is a nest ofswindlera
here."
Another witness was put into the box to give a similar ac-
count; but Mr. GURNEY stating that it was not his intention
' to dispute the facts as already proved, he withdrew.
Sampson Marshal called and examined—l lived at the plain-
tiff's house and occupied a few rooms; the plaintiff did not take
his meals in the house s he or one of his brothers usually slept
ho
there at night. Two or three days previous to this transaction,
I observed some perions walking backwards and forwards in
front of the house, I thought for the purpose of reconnoitring.--
(The witness then repea
A house ted the account of thefirst witness some
what more in detail.)
tou the
ryeyoarmwaasuactalalfedi9„
called, who the damage done to the
Mrs. Bradbury, called and examined by Mr. ADOLPHUS--
I am the wife of the plaintiff's landlord. The defendant,
aNvVeilevang,
rtholedpmhtitii
tt,n Octoberandhe lasahot,ollide"hahvaed
oma aadkieeientnioriuirtioes refar:
rush the house. He said Jones had aid him some money on.
account of the furniture : Jones wasp going to be married.
saw the defendant Wilson last Monday ; he inquired of me 0
it was Mr. John Jones or Mr. Philip Jones who had taken the
house ; I told him Mr. Philip Jones the plaintiff. I Paw thiiii,
defendant, Benham, a short time since; he said he thou
lose the verdict, and it would cost him 1004 but he a not
mind it.
hadA nbeiennvoice was put in, dated the sth October, 11121. He
they woulPdrluedtigesedbe
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendants, addressed the Jury. .
represented, he said, three very respectable tradesroen, who_n.s,u
sustained a considerable loss in consequence of the fraud wino!
he should lay before them. The truth of the transaction eel
turn out to be this :—ln October last the plaintiff caned t/Po
the defendant Wilson,- gave orders fora quantity of upholstery,
to the amount of 14181. for which he agreed to pay ready inoneY:
upontt atfterhemthbeyidhiade pohlaiearirtdifft,hoefewvhasnecownhia4
An advance was made of N. The goods were accordinglY sent
to the plaintiff's house at Walworth, but on demanding Pq:
moat, the defendant was informed by Jones that he ow e't_
trolley sorry, but unfortunately he was called on to. take ..10,,,.
bill in the hands of Messrs: Peering and Co. bankers, rbr .1u;
which had not been paid. Now here he Would informe !an,cs_.
Messrs. Perring'i clerk was present, and wotild to
th I
the
hood of that statierrieng. They would be surprised to hear thatastet 0.
very evening of the day on which the defendant Benliat„,.,,T
in goods, the plaintiff was selling them off at half price. ilttur
unonfs, 4';
twelve hours, What had been sold to him for fortY P°
was parting with for twenty pounds. Some of the gt
Al_ the
three days after, found their way into a shop-witidow Sloeur,!! 0
Borough. Mr. Benham inquired where they-had been boil g2ere
he was referred to a third
_person, who informed him °all:00dg
furnished to the plamtiff was about 3801.
purchased of the plaintiff Jones. The total amount If,
of these facts coming to the knowledge of the parties,
ti? ,Ilic
resorted to the mode described of regaining their
Pr°Peurlif be for
manner of doing it, perhaps, might be illegal, buntto under,
them to say.how far they were justified. if he plarntitt'inele there.
stood, wag In Court. lie would tell diem bow he,,7wAs fibe•
lie had been arrested for 181. and on Saturday last. "
der and thy.
rated on paying 101. and giving a bill for the renlalii
e,
some
of
amount of costs. At the time of entering the Jar. .'was only
the articles were then preparing f .Or rerrtoval ; 3,01.4,.cwee11i e'd al
by the course the defendants bad taken that they
the Vitthority of
saving what they had. He contended. Qn ,I;--„- a' proved the
" Noble v. Adam," 7 Taunt. Ite ).
I , that if " lini defeating
goods were purchased with a fraudulent intention
not
be consi-
the vendor of the payment, the property could .
tt, a
right,
tiered as passed by such a sale • and the defendants n umode of
It was In consegottei_n_e,ei
to retake them, thou h the '
doing it. 1 pman to the
Gilliam Walker called and examined—I am al° u ,h, We
defendant, who is a furnishing ironmonger in the 1.101.80t0t570, and
supplied the plaintiff with various axticles,
cdaosrhse. d
several plated articles.tile P ed from the
91!est, who said he would call and pay it as he return the pre,
fortu
City. I called again the plaintiff said it was un .„.e p.,„
bill had not been sent in before half-past two"'
'Tailli de
dwelfleicnidi on attorney'
vious day, as he had just received a letter from
II lie bad in.
The bill was sent in byBlich "laintiti'mi re.
stating, that unless he paid a bill for 01.
alantyhaast Perrings.;
he had been compelled to pay it, which had taken away 4''''
g tey could, not justify the
never receis ei ~. ,_„,ehnlige,
The defendant was called on to produce the bill or
but it was not forthcoming. ...roved)
Mr. John Sereliff; who belonged to a Sheffield house, r.,.. de,
that the goods which had been sold by that top p
ot',.`ii, in
fendant, Benham, were afterwards'found in a sop ui fro .
Bishopsgat.e..street.
M r. —..,„ a •
and wished me to call
pawnbroker ; on the 18th of October the i
residence
.lie, would:t
tiff called at our shop, and wished me to go to his , i
James Smith called and examined--I am in the etra,..Pl.,(7sin°-f
--1 rtielest -
I went in the evening ; he chewed me some plateea, „;
.he
advanced him 184 on them, and !Li,. on some tea-I_ll4nsds,
told me he had, or. expected' to have., some kitchen t it_'',„,,no._
quence of somethin ►g which ' occurred, I did not t'.ch joil
Benham came afterwards and. identified the go?ds Iv
beer pledged. bill Of dor
A clerk from Messrs. Perring proved, that no.
~ „0„a
amount or description mentioned by the plaintiff iglu r
through their hands in October.
again ' to look at them, of
__B, rill r.
1 oeht:aceryr.ested 1
ut that
A Gentleman was called, who stated that 'he went, in ath_cderg
part Of 1021, with the plaintiff to New- York, anti rotor ,iiiniiii-
Devonshire the money'
hint ; he then gave his name, as 3litehell;' he lent th!
(ff! which
181, for which he had arrested him, and for the payroll;
plaintiff
he was discharged from arrest on Sattuday last
; ttle,avours to
was arrested for it last May ; he had iiitule many en ji bi, means
get the plaintiff's real name, and ultimately succeetlettr„ri' him In
of plaintiff's brother ; plaintiff told him it' he call v
ent down'
but was not paid ; since this the laintirs brother ni,l" "75,0 in
a bill charging the witness 101. for his beard
whilst he
Devonshire. . din the sets
Mary Ward called anti examined--I
... I e.
.came to town and lived with piaintiff,
vice of the plaintiff's father and family in.Dtironsill,rsdcoe
would be paid ; the witness y
~ ..„1 in
mained with hini eight or nine years. On time fatheroc his 00,
brothers at Salisbury Cresent. 1 recollect some farnlVtc, itnins
days• The N, . J '
brought to Na.ll'4 it was taken away in a feW •,rre la ,
tiff-told me, it any: sate called I was to:deny. Win, bl." 'ciirries' he
lie kaiti it was the fashion in London to do so. t,°12.1..1,cr, .The
was denied by his brothers, and frequently by bis Trun-7,„, been
house at ilralworth had a back door, YOlich latterl,Yti::;, on-
generally used by the plain'iff anti' his brothero- Ihe 0001
moned plaintiff in the Court of Requests for 21. 181.,t., „gaititi
of My expenees from Devonshire to bOtitlini, `!7,1111:t0...1101,..r
promised to .pay ine. Ife inatie no defence, and
an execution against him for it.
Mr. .Manitvaa. at sortie lernith replied. co to the
The Lori.> Cities' It altoN summed up the, iden purchase
his mother, a t__3pilig ,
Jury, and left it to them to say if they thoug
. tat
WAS with a frautttikiit intent or not. nt . the 4
The Jury' firtnii a verdict for the plaintiff, 1.--•
of damage to the house.
the .

_ On Thursday
So great was the enthusiasm in 13arcel 0, oil
on ile
.receiving the Kin; of FRANC 's speech, that t`
whabionts actually illuminated the tesvo. ti
at his house in Dominick-strePt)
Fsq. Attorney at Law, was found dead in his, he
morning WILLIAM Ain
retired the previous night in apparent eliC,,,,,,ei•ent
►
.t.ealtit. Ile.has left a numerous family to '"'
I 1$ 1°56.--(Linserick Chronick.) __---
""i _
------ lie OW
Printed and Published for the Paorairtons, at t
OttiCe, Na. la, Strapfl, by J. 13. 041,T.41fr"."'"
to 0 bilent

I