The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-02 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-TUESDAY.

GOGGAR V. GOGGAR AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Wil-
liam Goggar, a retired publican, against the defendants,
the executors of his late brother, to recover the sum of one
thousand Founds.
The plaintiff and his late brother, to whom the defen-
dants are cxecutors, were publicans, and some fifteen years
since retired to Haynes, near Uxbridge. At that period
the plaintiff lent his brother, Mr. Thomas Goggar, a sum
of 1,0001. At the same time he rented a house from him,
the rent of which covered the interest upon that sum, but
in 1832, the plaintiff having occasion for some money, wrote
to his brother for a sum of 2001., which he wanted peremp-
torily upon a certain day. His brother sent a friend to the
plaintiff to know what he meant, as he thought all the
money he had received from him was a gift, and not as a
loan. The plaintiff and his wife expressed their surprise that
his brother should imagine such a thing. The plaintiff
subsequently got the money, and expressed a wish that his
brother would give a receipt for the rent of the house he had
from him, which he accordingly did. The only voucher he
had for all the money which the plaintiff gave his brother
was one I 0 U for 250/. The plaintiff's brother, in 1833,
died. The plaintiff then applied to his exeeutors for the
repayment of the money he had advanced him. This the
defendants refused to pay, and to recover which the present
action was brought.
The Jury found a verdict, for the amount of the I 0 U
—2501.

EXCHEQEER COURT-TUESDAY

SIMMONS V. HARTLEY.

This was an action for damages by reason of a false arrest.
The defendant was an attorney to some parties engaged as
plaintiffs in a Chancery suit against the plaintiff in the
present action, for the recovery of certain arrears of annuity
which, in his character of trustee, he was bound to pay.
Before the • Master's report, declaring the amount due, was
made, an anticipatory settlement was agreed upon, the
plaintiff (Simmons). paying • various sums. of money, and,
further, giving his acceptance . for 200/.; payable in two
months. The 2001. bill was, a few days afterwards, at the
defendant's request, exchanged for two bills of 1001. each.
At the expiration of three months the plaintiff• paid one of
the 1001. bills, and requeSted a renewal of the other for the
period of four months. No notice was taken of his appli-
tion, and lie was arrested at his own house; whereupon he
immediately paid to the officer the amount of his acceptance
and costs. The arrest, under these circumstances, formed
the ground of the present action.
Mr. ERLE appeared for the 'plaintiff.
Mr. PLATT for the defendant.
Verdict for the. plaintiff—Damages, 31. ss. 2d.

COURT OF THE ARCHDEACON OF

MIDDLESEX.-TUESDAY.

THE PARISH OF ST. MARY ABBOTT'S, KENSINGTON

This was a case respecting the election of a churchwarden
for this parish. In accodance with the usual custom, a
vestry meeting was held on the 20th of April, 18135, for the
purpose of transacting a variety of parochial, business, and
a
especially for the purpose of electing churchwarden. Two
gentlemen were proposed to fill the office, viz., Mr. Tho Mas
Moss and Mr. William Judson. The show of hands was
in favour of Mr. Moss ; a poll was demanded by his op-
ponent, and the result was the defeat of Mr. Moss, by a
majority of 190 votes. Mr. Moss conducted his own case,
and was now heard in support of his prayer to be sworn
into the office of churchwarden. lie contended that, ac-
cording to the true and fair construction of Mr. Sturges
Bourne's Act, no person was entitled to vote that was not
present at the vestry at the time of its coming to a division,
and that of those then present it was evident from the affi
davits in the case that a large majority were m his (Mr.
Moss's) favour.
Dr. ADDAMS, on behalf of Mr. William Judson, the
other candidate for the office, urged that there was no such
immemorial custom of electing by show of hands as had
been stated by Mr. Moss. The opposition on the part of
Mr. Moss, he not having objected to the poll at the time,
wai very vexatious, and he should therefore pray the Court
to condemn him in costs.

Dr. PHILLIMORE must pronounce for the legality of

proceedings, and declare his opinion in favour of Mr. Wm.
Judson. -He had seen nothing vexatious in the conduct o
Mr. Moss, and certainly could not think of- complying witl
the prayer of Counsel by condemning him i❑ costs.

SHERIFF'S COURT-TUESDAY

FLIGHPER V. MURPHY.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for a
breach of covenant. Mr. Byng, the Member for Middlesex,
had demised certain premises, situate at Poplar, to a Mr. Cul-
len, on the Ist Feb, 1788. That gentleman subsequently as-
signed them to the defendant, who, being in want of money,
applied to the plaintiff, who advanced him what he required
upon an annuity on the premises, the defendant covenanting
to keep them in proper repair. Instead of so doing, they
were in a dilapidated state. The repairs were estimated at
1831. 13s. The defendant had suffered judgment by default,
so that the jury had only to assess the damages.
Mr. L. W. Lloyd, a surveyor, had examined the premises,
which had not been occupied for three years. They were
in a bad state of repair, and there were holes in the floor
large enough for a man's foot to pass through.—( A laugh.)
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 1831. 10s.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

Q UEEN-SQUARE.

Yesterday Henry Thomas and Sarah Thomas, alias Sarah
Lawson, were brought up for final examination, the former
for a burglary at the residence of the Rev. John Humphrey
Davies, of Oak Hill, near Tunbridge, and. the latter for
having received some of the stolen property, well knowing
the same to be part of the proceeds of the bnrglary in
question.

Messrs. WHITE and HEATIICOTE were the presiding
Magistrates.
Mr. Davies, the prosecutor, and the Rev. Thomas Knox,
of. Tunbridge, attended the examination.
The following additional evidence was brought forward :
Mrs. Mary Howard sworn—l attended Mrs. Davies as
nurse in her late accouchement, and was with her on the
night of the 15th ult. at Oak Hill. About half-past eight
o'clock on the evening of the day in question, I let in Eliza
Johnson, the housemaid, who had been to church, after
which no other person left the house that night. I bolted
the door, and then went to my mistress's bedchamber, and
at the hour of ten o'clock or so went to bed, at which time
my master and the rest of the family had retired to rest.
The house, I concluded, was fastened by Eliza Johnson, as it
was her duty. In the night I was awoke by my mistress, who
said, 'I Nurse, there are thieves in the house." Witness was
much alarmed. Almost immediately afterwards three men
entered the room very softly ; they came armed with sticks
and pistols. They approached the side of the bed, and told
us not to stir, but to be quiet, and then they would not hurt
us ; but that if we made an alarm the worst might happen.
When the robbers entered the room, witness heard one of
them say " this is the room where the sick lady is." One
of the men then inquired of Mrs. Davies where the money
was, who replied there was not much in the house, but
what cash there was she (Mrs. Davies) believed was in the
drawing-room cupboard. The ruffians then inquired how
many men were in the house, and on being told one, they
asked whether he was young or old, and witness replied, a
very aged and infirm gentleman, and begged them for God's
sake not to injure him. The robbers then observed, " Well
its no odds, we are three to one." The three robbers then
left the room, when her mistress, fearing they were gone to
murder Mr. Davies, fell into hysterics, and immediately af-