The Sun.
London, England, 1866-10-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Registrar Pepys.)
LN RE TUE REV. R. LEE.
This bankrupt was describedas a clerk in hob orders, of
Stepney, he being the rector of that parish, and to-day he
came up for proof of debts and choice of assignees. No
accounts are yet filed, as the adju,dication has been made
on a cross petition, but the debts are not large. A day
was named for next hearing.

SHOREDITCH COUNTY COURT.
TIIE RIGHT OF A LANDLORD TO LOCK OUT HIS LODGER.-

IMPORTANT CASE. - GODFREY V. HUNT.

This was an action to recover damages under somewhat
novel circumstances, plaintiff being the landlord of N 0.357
Cavendish-street, Horton, and defendant a lodger in the
house.

It appeared that the 'plaintiff had complained of a rob-
bei y having been committed in his house, and he alleged
that he gave his wifo instructions to inform the lodgers
that the door would be locked by a certain hour. Notwith-
standing this notice, defendant persisted in stopping out to
an unreasonable hour, and upon a certain morning, at 2
o'clock, he disturbed the inmates of the house. by
loudly knocking at the street door. Before any one
could come to open the door ho broke it open with great
violence, and did considerable damage. At the first hear-
ing his Honour was of opinion that a landlord was not jus-
tified in locking out his tenant, but agreed to adjourn the
case for the attendance of plaintiff's wifo.

Mrs. Godfrey now atended, and stated that she had in-
formed defendant's wife of the circumstances under which
the door would be locked at a certain hour. She was quite
sure that defendant's wife understood the matter fully.
His Honour said that the evidence of the wife somewhat
changed the aspect of the case. As she had sworn that a
special notice had been given to the parties thoy wore
bound by it, and therefore the landlord was entitled•to
lock tho door. The verdict would be for the plaintiff, with
costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MANSION-HOUSE.

SERIOUS CASE OF EMBEZZLEMENT.—Two young men, of
very respectable appearance, named Anderson .and Good-
man, who had been twice remanded, were again placed at
the bar, before Mr. Alderman Lusk, M.P., charged, the
former with embezzling £144, the property of his em-
ployers, Messrs. Henderson,'Constable, and Co., the well-
known extensive sugar dealers in the City, and the latter
with feloniously receiving £BO of the same, knowing it to
be stolen.

it appeared that Anderson had been entrusted to collect
the money, in question from different persons with whom
his employers had business dealings, and had signed re-
ceipts for the money which he had received. This was
early last month, and shortly afterwards he disappeared,
and his employers received a letter from him from Paris,
in which he admitted that he had embezzled the money,
stating that he had been induced to do so by the represen-
tation of a friend, who promised to obtain him a lucrative
situation in the south of France if he could raise LlOO.
Ho was arrested in Birmingham, with only a small portion
of the money in his possession, which he delivered up to
the officer.

Goodman was a clerk in the office of a merchant, and
was a friend of Anderson's, and gave information respect-
ing the money that had been deposited with him, which
ultimately led to Anderson's apprehension. It appeared,
however, that he had at first denied to the officers who had
called on him having then in his possession any property
of Anderson's, and that he subsequently destroyed the
notes, but gave the officers the numbers.
He was admitted to bail on Saturday last, his employer
becoming his security.
Mr. Beard made a very strong appeal to the worthy al-
derman not to commit the prisoner Goodman for trial, as
he had not been guilty, dwelling on the fact of the infor-
mation he had afforded the officer, and the character he
had previously from his employer, who said he believed
him incapable of receiving the money if he had even sus-
pected it had been stolen. He had been guilty, no doubt,
of indiscretion, but not complicity in the offence of the
other prisoner.

Mr. Alderman Lusk remarked that Goodman had ori-
ginally made a false statemeht to the officer; and he would
prefer to have a jury decide on the case.
Both prisoners were then fully committed to take their
trial at the Central Criminal Court, but Goodman was
admitted to bail.