The Sun.
London, England, 1851-12-13 00:00:00

£29,902,930 1 £29,902,930
M. MARSHALL, Chief Cashier.
Dated the 11th day of December, 1851.
BANKING DEPAATISEN T.

Proprietorecapital.• 14,553,000..
nest -• • ...... 3,126,495
Public deposits (in-
cluding Exchequer,
Commissioners of
National Debt, Say-
ings-banks, and Di-
vidend accottms).. 8,077,314
Other deposits •• • ... 9,539,188
Se'ren day and other
Bills •• ..•• .... 1,156,363

Government secnri-

ties (including Dead
Weight Annuity) .. 13,241,768
'Other securities • • • •
11,01811,547,043
!Notes • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ,425
'Gold and silver coin.. 615,654

£36,452,890

£36,452,890
bf. MARSHALL, Chief Cashier.
1851.

Dated tho 11 th day of Deeembei

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 12.

(Sittings at :Nisi Prius, at Guildholl,before Lord
CAMPBELL and a Special Jury.)
DODD V. LEG GATT.

Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr. Bramwell, and Mr. Willes
appeared for the plaintiff ; and Sir F. Thesiger and
Mr. Cleasby for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action carried on business as a
jeweller at No. 78, Cornhill, and sued the defendant
i❑ an action on the case for obstructing the entrance
to his shop. Shop frontage in that part of the city
was so valuable, that it was stated to be worth as
much as 2/. ss. an inch per annum. This circum-
stance let to the original shop being divided into two,
one of which was occupied by the plaintiff as a jeweller
and the other by the defendant as a printseller. There
was a common entrance passage to the two shops,
and on each side of the passage there was a door lead-
ing into the respective shops. For some time the
plaintiff and defendant lived together on good terms,
and this continued down to the month of October,
1850, when some differences arose between them,
which finally led to the present action. The ground
of the present action was that the defendant in-
jured the plaintiff's business by standing in the
passage, and obstructing the entrance to the plaintiff's
shop. It was also alleged that the defendant was a
man of great liveliness of conversation, and being
very popular in the neighbourhood, would make the
passers-by plunge into a long conversation, and thus
was in the habit of occupying the passage, to the
great obstruction of the plaintiff's business. Consi-
derable amusement was produced in court by the
reading of certain notes of these conversations, which
had been made by a boy in the plaintiff's service, in
which the times during which the entrance was ob-
structed were accurately noted down. These entries
were made daily for a considerable time. Some cus-
tomers of the plaintiff were also called, and stated
that from the obstruction caused by the defendant
they had felt difficulty in getting into the plaintiff's
shop.

Sir F. MESMER, for the defendant, submitted that
no substantial cause of action had been made out.
The action sprung out of a misunderstanding which
had unfortunately arisen between the parties, before
which time there had been no complaint made by the
plaintiff; on the contrary, the plaintiff had derived
donsiderable advantage from the defendant's conver-
sational powers.
Lord CAMPBELL said, the question for the jury was
entirely one of fact. The plaintiff's object was pro-
bably not to obtain substantial damages, but only
such as would relieve him from the inconvenience
which he sustained from the defendant's conduct. As
the fact of the defendant's standing in the passage
was clearly proved, the only question would be, whe-
ther he had done so to such an extent as to give the
plaintiff just cause of complaint.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with 40s.
damages.
Lord CAMPBELL certified that the action was a
proper one to be tried by a special jury.