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

COURT OF KING'S BENCH; FEB: 1.

CHEETHAM V. LORD ALVANLEY.

This, was an action against•Lorcl Alvanley on a
bill of exchange for 5:25/. The defendant's' Court=
sel attempted to prove that the bill had been given
for a gambling consideration `.to Mr. Crockford, but
failed; and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 1.

LANGFORD V. FOOT AND OTHERS.

This was an action for an illegal distress.. The
plaintiff, Mrs. Langford, it may be recollected,
brought an action of trespass against the present de-
fendants some time ago for expelling her from her
house and selling her goods; but it appearing that
she had represented herself to be the wife of a Mr.
Jenkins, and she not satisfactorily proving such
representation, the Jury returned a verdict for the
defendants. She now brought another action for
an illegal distress on that occasion, contending that
the sale had been irregular, and that her furniture
had been disposed of for less than the best price for
which it might have been sold. The plaintiff is the
widow of a Dr. t.angford, and after having kept a
lodging-house at Brighton for some time,she returned
to London arid took a house in Suffolk-street, Pall-
mall, at 2001. a year, belonging to the defendant, Mr.
Foot, of the firm of Lundy Foot and Co.,
snuff-manufakurers. She then went by the name.
of Mr-. Jenkins, representing that she was the wife
~f Mr. Jenkins, a respectable iron-founde; who was
at that time travelling in Scotland, whereas it after-
wards turned out that she stas not his wife. She
obtained some furniture on hire of an upholsterer,
to whom she stated that she wanted it for Sir
George and Lady Featherstone, who were coming
to lodge in her house, which she was to purchase if
she did not return it within two months. She lei
her apartments to different persons, some very re-
spectable, for a short time, when difficulties press-
ing upon her, she wrote to her landlord to say, that,
having foolishly put her name to a warrant of attor-
ney for her sister, an execution had been put into her
house, and therefore he had better put in a distress
for his rent. This suggestion was acted upon, and
the defendant Berry, acting under the directions of
Mr. Foot, employed the other defendants, an auc-
tioneer, a broker, and his man, to levy a distress.
The ground of complaint was that her family had
been expelled from the house by the defendants;
that the sale had not been fairly conducted; and
that goods which might have fetched from 1004 to
2001. had only produced 761., in consequence of the
improper way in which the sale had been conducted.

. .
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 301. against all the defendants, except
Berry, for whom (under his Lordship's directions,
as he had only obeyed his principal's instructions)
they returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 1.

DOWLY V. BENNETT.

Mr. Sergeant JONES and Mr. CHANNELL, for the
plaintiff, stated that this was an issue directed by the
Vice-Chancellor, whether an agreement dated the
--- day of December, 1832, was signed by the
defendant before an agreement, dated the 12th of
December, 1828, was signed by the plaintiff, who
affirmed that the agreement signed by the defen-
dant was first signed. The plaintiff was an elderly
lady, the defendant a grocer, at No. 8, Stamford-
street, Blackfriars-road, of which house the plaintiff
was proprietor, and her tenant, Cooper, had paid her
80/. a year net-rent for a long time, but he quitting,
the defendant proposed to take the house, and on the
12Th of December, 1828, she agreed to let it to him
at 65 guineas rent. The defendant brought two
agreements, which he filled up at plaintiff's house,
one signed by him stating the rent at 65 guineas
and the other stating it at sixty-five guineas
inclusive of taxes, which the plaintiff was to pay,
which last agreement plaintiff signed on the faith
that it was the same as the first.

The Jury found verdict for the plaintiff in the
affirmative of the issue,--viz., that the agreement
signed by the defendant was first signed.

COUFIT OF BANKRUPTCY, FEB. 1.