The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(771118 DAY).

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord Chief Baron Pollock
and a Common Jury.)
DOBBS V. HELLIER.

This was an action of damages for trespass {►nd conver-
sion of goods.
The defendant pleaded the general issue.

It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff was due
the defendant £2O of rent in March, 1853; and it was then
agreed that he should become a weekly tenant, and sell his
stock of tools to the defendant for £5 Bs., the plaintiff to
re-purchase them again at one pound per week. The
defendant alleged that the plaintiff removed his furniture
without paying his rent, and left the shop -door open, and
the defendant took possession in June last. The money for
the tools was not paid. There was no person present when
it was agreed to let the house quarterly and the shop
weekly, at 3s. 6d. per week, to the plaintiff. 13 weeks'
rent was then due to defendant. The plaintiff alleged a
yearly tenancy payable quarterly, and denied the weekly
tenancy. The rent was £2O a-year, payable £5 per quarter,
and he had a right to remain until legally removed, but
unlawful possession was taken by the defendent and his
son, who commenced business as a blacksmith there on his
own account in August last, using the plaintiff's tools in
the trade.

Counsel on both sides addressed the jury, and the Lord
Chief Baron summed up the evidence. The jury returned
a verdict for the plaintiff, £4O damages for the loss, and
£l9 17s. for the tools.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)

IN RB STRBATFIELD, LLWRBNCE, AND CO.-1100MB

LEATHER FAILURE.

This was the certificate meeting in the matter of Law-
rence, Mortinore, and Co., trading in London and Liver-
pool. The bankrupt's accounts have already appeared in
full.

This morning the court was so densely crowded that i,
was a work of extreme difficulty to obtain entry. The mul•
titude were very quiet, and appeared greatly interested.
;I Mr. Lawrence was examined by Mr. Kerslake at grew
length as to the money transactions of the firm.
The case is expected to last a considerable time.

SECONDARIES' COURT.

COCKSHOTT V. REV. H. BRETT.-BREACH OP PROMISE

OF MARRIAGIL-DAMAGES £1,200.

This was a writ of inquiry to assess the damages laid at
£5,000, defendant having suffered judgment to go by
default. Considerable interest had been excited by this
case, and it had been arranged to take it in the Common
Pleas Court, Guildhall, instead of the old-fashioned law
court in Basinghall-street. A special jury had been sum-
moned, and Messrs. Huddleston, Q.O , and Williams,
instructed by Messrs. Sharpe and Co., for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is a governess, and a young lady of consider-
able personal attractions, filling a situation in Manchester,
and defendant is the incumbent of some place in the same
town. The parties had been acquainted for a considerable
period, and no less than sixty letters had been entered on
the counsels' briefs to be road during the proceeding of the
oase. Everything was prepared this morning for trying
the case, or rather for assessing the damages, and the
Common Pleas Court presented a rather lively appearance.
The special jurymen duly arrived, and some few proceeded
" over the way," when, lo 1 at the eleventh hoar, or more
properly speaking, at half-past ten, a clerk from Messrs.
Sharpe and Co. attended, and stated that the case had been
arranged between the parties, who had agreed to a verdict of
1,200 damages. A telegram had been received from
Manchester, last night at half-past six o'clock to that effect,
and so there would be no cause for the services of the special
jury.

By direction of the learned Secondary the special jury
were discharged, and those gentlemen departed gainealess.
Considerable disappointment was felt by persons who
had " heard of the case," and two witnesses who arrived,
having been subpoenaed for the plaintiff, in haste, were
informed of the withdrawal of the case. It is usual in
oases where the matter is not arranged until a late hour to
pay the jurymen their foes, but in this matter a simple
discharge was the result, the only consolation being that
the plaintiff had obtained £1,200 damages.