The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-13 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.—(Mis Day.)

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Beforo Mr. Kerr.)
110 W TO GET RID OF A TROUBLESOME CUSTOMER.-

COHEN V. BEItENS.

Plaintiff is a general dealer, and defendant keeps a very
large warehouse for French and fancy goods. There were
two actions—one for £2, damages alleged to have been sus-
tained by the non-delivery of some goods ; and £3, damages
alleged to have been sustained in consequence of some per-
son in defendant's service having pitched plaintiff down
stairs and torn his coat.

In the first action, his Honour decided that the goods
had not been sold, and non-suited the plaintiff.
In the second case, plaintiff said that a great Irishman in
defendant's service took him by the collar and threw him
down stairs. His coat was torn, and some goods in his
pocket broken.

His Honour—lf you were kicking up a row they had a
right to remove you.

Plaintiff—They ought to have sent for a policeman.
I was not troublesome, and they had no right to tear my
clothes.

His Honour—They might have sent for a policeman ;
but if you annoyed them, they had a perfect tight to turn
you out of their house. You had no business there.
Mr. Patchett called for defendant a witness named
Miller. That person said that plaintiff was in the habit of
ealliug to buy job lots, and after being told the price he in-
variably offered a smaller sum. There was a tray of goods
or which witness had asked 705., and plaintiff had on se-
veral occasions bid a less snm, haggling over it, and wasting
a great deal of time. On the day of the alleged assault,
plaintiff again asked the price of the tray ; witness told him
that he could not waste any time. Plaintiff went to a
joiner, and that person agreed to let him have it for £3.
Plaintiff put down £2 155., and put some of the goods in
his pocket. He was then seized and removed. As to the
great Irishman, that was witness's brother. Witness took
plaintiff by the collar and walked him to the door. Upon
arriving there plaintiff sank down, and witness's brother
just put his hand behind, and plaintiff went down stairs.
(Laughter.)
His Honour did not see why defendant should be an-
noyed by such a troublesome fellow as plaintiff.

Nonsuit with costs.
I.IOUSTER V. SPENCER--131FORTANT HOUSE AGENCY CASE.

This was an action to recover commission, as house ageat,
for letting a house for the defendant. On account of its
general application the decision is one of considerable im-
portance. The owner of a house employed plaintiff to let
it, and plaintiff put up a board. A person saw the board,
and after some interviews with defendant (the owner) took
it. Upon these facts his Honour decided that the tenant
having taken the house of the defendant from merely seeing
the board, the commission claimed was not recoverable.
Plaintiff would have a verdict for 10s. 6d., the price of an
advertisement inserted in a morning paper, and 2s. for his
trouble in putting up the board.
Plaintiff declined to accept the 25., as he could not keep
clerks and offices upon such a remuneration.

STUART V. HIGGINS..--RUNICING DOWN-NEGLIGENCX.

This was an action to recover a sum of money for
damages sustained, in consequence of a trap driven by
defendant's servant running into a photon driven by plain-
tiff. Mr. Mason (Mason and Sturt) appeared for the
defendant.

The whole case turned upon whether the driver of the
phLeton had given the signal by holding up his whip. Plain-
tiff and his witnesses swore the whip was held up ; defen-
dant and his driver swore they saw no whip.
His Honour thought that there was negligence in persons
keeping so close together, and he wished the law would
enable him to make defendant pay. In this case there was
not negligence of that kind shown which would malt*
plaintiff to recover. Next time defendant would suffer.
Now there would be a verdict for the defendant with costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH STREET.

ATTACK ON A BROKER'S MAN IN P OSSESSION.—A
LENIENT DEClSlON.—Frederick Lavender, 2, Union-street,
Middlesex Hospital, tailor, was charged before Mr. Beadon
with assaulting Charles Custell, a broker's man, living at
22, Upper Charlton-street.

The complainant, who said he was in the employ of Mr.
Rutherford, a broker, and was put in possession of the de-
fendant's furniture by his landlord, Mr. Josh. Newton, for
rent. The defendant, who had been drinking, struck him
on the cheek, arms, and ribs—said he did not care for the
police, and that he would get a dozen of his "pals," and
make away with him before morning. The defendant then
opened the window of the room and tried to throw him out.
The wife also attacked him and threw several things at him.
Mr. Joseph Newton said he had put a distress into the
defendant's apartment, having previously offered to forgive
him the rent if he would leave. The defendant, however,
put him at defiance, and refused to leave, and said no ma-
gistrate should make him do so. Hearing cries of " Mur-
der" the previous day, he went up stairs and found the
defendant grasping the man by the throat, and he refused
to release him. The man's coat was much torn, and the
inkstand produced was thrown at the man by the defend-
ant's wife. The window was open, and there had been an
attempt to throw the man out.
Mr. Beadon said the defendant had assaulted the broker's
man in the execution of his duty. He should order him to
make good the damage done to the man's coat, and be well
out of the house that day, and should send a constable to
see it done, or ho should order him to bo brought back.
The defendant said he would leave the house, and went
away with the constable for that purpose.