The Sun.
London, England, 1833-02-18 00:00:00

11ILLES V. TRAVERS.

This was an action by a portrait paiker, to re-
cover the price of two portraits painted for the
defendant, who was secretary to the Surrey Canal
Company. The defence was, that the portraits had
been painted gratuitously, to be exhibited by the
defendant, with a view to extending the plaintiff's
connexion.
The Jury found for the plaintiff for 251.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 13.

COMBES V. POCKIANGTON.

This was an action of false imprisonment, in
which the plaintiff, a master builder, sought to re-
cover a compensation in damages from the defendant,
a butcher, in the Old Jewry, for having delivered
him in charge to an officer, by whom he was taken
to the Worsh'p-s.reet police office, upon a charge
of having stolen two ponies from the defendant.
The plaintiff had purcha4ed•the horses of a farrier
of the name of Smith, in whose custody they
were, for 201., and went off with the money, with-
out accounting for it to the defendant, who was the
owner of the horses. The chatge against the
plaintiff was immediately dismissed by the Magis-
trate,,, who observed that Smith was the person
who ought to have been brought before them.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 301.
TIPTON V. MARTIN.

This was an action of assault and false imprison-
ment.

Mr. Elms; said that the plaintiff was a man now
in indigence, but formerly in affluent circumstances,
and that he tied taken lodgings in the house of the de-
fendant,in Bouverie-street,for which he was to pay his
rent nionthly,a payment corresponding with the receipt
of an annuity bestowed upon him by his friends. He
had not, however, occupied his lodgings above a fort-
night, when, on his return home, he was surprised
to find the door locked against him, and his clothes
detained. Conceiving he had a legal redress for
this injury, he inquired of the watchman what was
the Christian name of the defendant, in order that
he might sue him. The watchman asked for what
purpose he trade the inquiry, and having learned
who he was, told him he had directions from the
defendant to take him into custody upon a charge
of taking lodgings under fdse pretences. He was
accordingly taken to the watch-house, where the
defendant shortly appeared, insisted upon his being
detained, and was with difficulty persuaded to allow
the plaintiff to give the direction of his then resi-
dence, but insisted that he should be accompanied
to that place by the watchman. They accordingly
proceeded to Little Britain, where they saw the
plaintiff's landlord, and then the defendant, although
he knew where to find the plaintiff, had him taken
to the Compter, where he was finally discharged,
there being no legal ground for his detention. The
Learned Counsel insisted that this was a case for
serious damages.
The case was proved by James Yates, the con-
stable of the night, by the watchman, and by Mr.
Thomas Copland; but it appeared on Yates's cross-
examivation that the plaintiff on being asked his re-
sidence said fir,t he did not know, and afterward's
said in St. Paul's-churchyard, and not until he was
very much pressed gave up his real address, in
Little Britain.

Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages one farthing.
His Lordship, however, refused to certify.

FEB. 16.
THOMPSON V. MOSELEY.

This was an action on a bill of exchange, drawn
by James Thorn, accepted by the defendant, in-
dorsed to Fearn, and by Fearn indorsed to the
plaintiff. The bill was dated 911 of May, 1832,
and appeared to be drawn for 7.51., at three months
after date. The defendant had given notice to dis-
pute the bill on the ground of forgery of his accept-
ance, also on the ground of an alieged alteration in
the amount of the bill.
The Jury, after hearing evidence, found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 761. 7s. 4d.