The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-23 00:00:00

BLADES V. LE SAUNIER.

This was an action to recover damages brought by the
plaintiff, the widow of a licensed victualler, against the de-
fendant, a shoemaker, at 272, Regent-street, for falsely im-
prisoning her on the 19th of November.
Witnesses were called on the part of the plaintiff, from
whose testimony it appeared that on the day in question
some ladies, calling themselves the Misses Mortimer, had
taken apartments at the house of the plaintiff, which was
elegantly furnished, at 24, New Quebec-street, New-road,
at the rate of two guineas per week ; that they said they
expected their luggage shortly, and, in the interim, they
went out, and soon returned, when a boy, in the employ of
the defendant, brought four pair of boots and two pair of
shoes for the ladies, which the defendant carried up stairs.
They desired her to send up the boy, which she did, and
he in a few minutes after quitted the house. The ladies
also went out, and, as it seemed, carried the boots and shoes
with them, saying they should be back to tea. They had
not been gone long before the boy returned, and being told
the ladies were out said he must wait till they came home,
and the defendant invited him to wait in the kitchen,
where he remained for a length of time. Between eight
and nine o'clock at night the defendant came to the
house, and finding the ladies had not returned demanded
his property of the plaintiff, as it had been delivered to her.
She replied she knew nothing of it. He then called her a
swindler, and used other opprobrious epithets, saying it was
" all a hook," called in a policeman and searched the apart-
ments for his property ; not finding it, he examined the
chest of drawers, which, with the exception of one, was un-
locked, and this not being able to open with certain keys
which he tried, he broke it open, expecting to find his pro-
perty, which he valued at 4/. 6s. Not finding it, he re-
peatedly, in a passion, said, " Oh, it's all a hook !" He then
gave the plaintiff in charge, and the police officer, at half-
past nine o'clock at night, marched her off to the station-
house in Hereford-street, New-road, whither the defendant
attended, and charged her with being one of a party in
cheating him of the boots and shoes, and then departed.
She was put into the general lock-up, and, subsequently, a
woman, in a state of intoxication, was locked up with her.
There she remained till six o'clock the next morning, when
she was removed to another station-house in Marylebone-
lane, and from thence, at eleven o'clock, she was taken to
the police-office in High-street, before Mr. SHUTT, the
Magistrate, who, on hearing the merits of the case, dis-
charged her from custody.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101.

JOHNSTONE V. LORD LANGFORD.

The plaintiff, a milliner and drowmaker, sought to re-

cover the sum of 221. 13s. for sundry dresses furnished to
Lady Langford. The noble defendant had replied, and put
upon the record that he was not liable, for that he was
separated from his lady, that he allowed her sufficient for
her maintenance, viz., 601. per month. There were several
other pleas to show his non-responsibility, and among the
rest one which, were he to state it, would be actionable, as,
though the noble defendant pleaded in bar, he did not sus-
tain his plea by proof.
Miss Sophia Perry proved the bill, and enumerated some
of the dresses furnished. Among the number was a velvet
dress, charged 101. 10s. ; a black and white muslin dress, &c.
On her cross-examination by Mr. DAVID POLLOCK she
admitted that application had been made to Lord Lang-
ford in Dorset-square, and that Lady Langford lived at
No. 27, Green-street, Grosvenor-square.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. POLLOCK then said—My Lord, I submit to a ver-
dict this day. This is only one of many other cases of a
similar nature against his Lordship.
The Learned JUDGE then said—That being so, you will
find, gentlemen, a verdict for the plaintiff for 22/. 13s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.