The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-16 00:00:00

COURT OF E.XGWEQUER, Nov. 15.

(Sittings at Nisi P7iusaiWeitniinver, before Mr. Baron
PLATT and Common Juries.)
HORNE V. THORNBOROUGH.

This was an action of trespass, whereby the plaintiff
sougkt to recover compensation in damages for injury
sustained by means of the forcible entry and taking pos-
session of certain premises, by an assault committed
upon the wife of the plaintiff, and by her false imprison-
ment. The defendant pleaded that he was not guilty by
statute.

Mr. E. W. Cox conducted the case for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Sergeant Chadwick Jones and Mr. Charnock
appeared for the defendant.
It appeared from the statement of the Learned Counsel,
and supported by the evidence which that Learned Gen-
tleman called, that the plaintiff was a working jeweller,
carrying on his business in Leigh-street, Burton-crescent,
whilst the defendant was a wheelwright, possessed of
very considerable property. Amongst property which
he had become the owner of was the house which was in
the occupation of the plaintiff, which occupation he en-
joyed under a lease of 7, 14, or 21 years, determinable
by the usual notice on the part of the tenant so long
as the quarterly payments for rent were duly main-
tained. The defendant made his purchase subject to
this lease, of which at the time there were some nine or
ten years unexpired. It chanced that in the month
of January last the plaintiff was imprudent enough to
accept a bill for a friend, which acceptance not having
been duly honoured, the plaintiff, as the acceptor, was
arrested, and in the end thrown into Whitecross-street
Prison. The rent of the house house the plaintiff had
regularly paid up to the Christmas. In the month 'of
April the plaintiff was still in prison, and at Lady-day a
quarter's rent had become due. On the 26th of April
the wife of the plaintiff left the house for a short time,
and on her return was greatly surprised to learn that
the son of the defendant had been there, turned out her
son from the shop, taken possession, and then locked the
door. The wife very naturally endeavoured to re-obtain
an entrance, and, as the upper part of the shop-door was
composed of glass, she did not in the end decline break-
ing it ; but no sooner had sho done so than some boys
made their appearance, and the defendant coming
up, seized her and tried to push her out of the
passage. A scuffle ensued, and a crowd collected
round the house. In the end, after some argument,
the defendant gave the wife into the custody of a
policeman, by whom she was taken to the Clerkenwell
Police-court. The magistrate, having heard the na-
ture of the accusation against her, instantly directed
that she should be set free. The defendant admitted
to the magistrate that his son had taken possession of
the place by his directions, but he was then told that he
had acted most illegally in the step he had taken, and
had rendered himself liable to an action. He was also
informed that he must give up the possession to the
plaintiff's wife, but on her returning to the house that
intimation had proved of no avail, seeing that posses-
sion was still denied to her. The wife thereupon made
an appeal to the magistrate, who sent two policemen
with her to demand possession. The appearance of the
policemen had the desired e ffect, and the poor woman
was once more reinstated in her house. For the ill-
treatment the wife had received, and the trespass which
had been committed, compensation was therefore sought
by the present action.
On the part of the defendant it was urged that the
plaintiff's wife had, in truth, not only abandoned the
possession, but had previously removed the goods and
stock-in-trade. Finding this to have been the case, and
that the door had been found open, the defendant
directed his son to take possession, and to lock the door.
The jury eventually returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff, with 251. damages.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 15.
(Sittings in Banco.)
moss v. SMITH.
This action was tried before the Lord Chief Justice,
at the last sittings after term, at Guildhall, when a ver-
dict was found for the defendant.
Mr. MARTIN applied for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had,
on the ground of misdirection, and of the verdict being
against the evidence. The plaintiff was the mortgagee
of a ship called the Alfred, and the defendants are the
directors of the Marine Insurance Company, from whom
a policy for 1,0001. had been obtained upon the freight
of the vessel, and this action was brought to recover that
amount. The insurance was taken out in 1842, and the
ship sailed in September in the same year, upon a voy-
age to Australia, and from thence she went to the co ,st
of South America, arriving on the 28th of June, 1844,
at a place called Cobya, where she took in a cargo or
guano. On the 2d of September she got to Valparaiso,
alai took on board a quantity of dollars and whalebone,
and set sail for England on the 12th. Between the 12th
and the 29th she met with a great deal of bad weather,
and sustained considerable damage; and on the 29th she
put back, and arrived at Valparaiso on the 19th of Oc-
tober. Upon being surveyed it was found that 19,000
dollars would be necessary to put her in complete re-
pair, but as that was more than the value of the ship,
she was treated as a total loss, and sold for a small sum.
For the defence, it was contended that there was no
total loss, that the damage was greatly over-rated, and/
that a much smaller sum would have been enough
to put the ship in repair in order to bring
her to England. The sum of nol was paid into court.
In support of the defence, a German captain was
called, who stated that with slight repairs he
brought her to England ; that she went back to the
West Indies -and returned to this country in good
repair on each occasion with a cargo, and that she
was now employed as a ship of war by the German
Republic. The Learned Counsel said it might be quite
true, that with slight repairs, she could be brought to
England, but she was incapable of bringing the cargo
which was on board of her, and therefore ought to be
treated as a total loss. The Learned Judge directed the
jury, that, if the ship could be repaired at all
within a reasonable time, there was no loss of freight.
The Learned Counsel held that this direction was
wrong, and referred to several authorities in support of
his argument.
The COURT took time to consider their decision.

---
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
George Whitaker was charged with having committed
a violent assault upon a poor young woman.
On Tuesday night the girl, who was passing home to
the Borough over London-bridge, sat down to rest her-
self in one of the alcoves, immediately after which two
or three young men turned as they went along to look
at her, amongst whom was the defendant, who put his
hand rudely upon her. She pushed his band aside, and
he immediately struck her with the greatest violence
with his fist in the face. An honest labourer named
Durmain, who resides in David-street, Dover-road, hap-
pened to see the transaction, and immediately collared
the defendant, and called for the police. The defendant
resisted such interference, and not only struck the man
but knocked his hat over the bridge. The police, how-
ever, soon separated them, and took the defendant to the
station-house.
The LORD MAYOR—Defendant, what have you to say
in answer to this charge of most cowardly and brutal
assault?
The Defendant—l saw other young mon go up and
look in her face, and I did so, and she gave me a slap in
the face, which I returned.
The LORD MAYOR then sentenced the defendant to
pay the fine of 405., and the money not being forthcom-
ing sent him to prison for a month. His Lordship con-
cluded the case by making a present of a new hat to the
poor fellow who so benevolently interfered.
Rolfe, a plumber, and his Eon, were-charged with
having robbed the premises of Messrs. Southill Lind Co:,
of Nos. 13, and 14, King-street, Cheapside, warehouse- ,
men, and were remanded for further examination.