The Sun.
London, England, 1866-12-05 00:00:00

ROSE T. KITCHEN.

In this case the plaintiff brought an action for damages
for false imprisonment. There was a similar action,
" Spetty v. Kitchen," tried yesterday, and both cases arose
out of the same transaction. It appeared that the parties
resided at Broadwall-on-the-Sea, in Essex, and that Spetty
had sold Rose a boat. The defendant, revenue officer, charged
them with having felonious possession of some rigging,
the property of Government, and they were both in custody
from Saturday until Tuesday, when they were discharged
by the magistrate. The jury yesterday found a verdict
for Spotty, and to-day awarded £2O to Kitchen, the ver-
dict in both cases being subject to the opinion of the court
above.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before Chief Baron Kelly and a Special Jury.)
SETCHWORTH V. LORD RANELAGD.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
the sum of £94 from the defendant for.work and labour
done.

The plaintiff stated that he was engaged to act as an
agent for Viscount Ranelagh on the occasion of his lord-
ship becoming a candidate for a seat in Parliament for
Middlesex, and he went to work with the greatest as-
siduity. His name appeared on the electioneering posters as
Lord Ranelagh's agent, and he acted during the whole of the
time he was so engaged in that capacity.. Although he had
no understanding that his lordshtp was to pay his ex-
penses, he believed that he was engaged to act for him in
a bona fide manner. At the conclusion of his services he
sent in his bill for payment, and then it was that his ap-
pointment as agent was called in question. The defendant
denied his liability, and refused to pay the expenses he
had incurred on his behalf.

The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the fu:
amount claimed.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
COOKS AT CLUB-HOUSES -MOORE V. PAP WORTH.

This was an action brought by the proprietor of the
" Baltic" against his late chief cook, to recover damages
alleged to have been sustained by defendant's leaving the
service without giving duo and proper notice.
Mr. Jones appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Thomas Beard
reprepenting defendant.

The plaintiff said that defendant had been in his service
as chief cook, at a salary of 455. per wook. lie left without
giving due notice, and plaintiff was put to considerable
trouble and expense before he could find a substitute.

In cross-examination plaintiff said that ho employed a
large number of hands, and in order to enforce regularity
he was compelled to have a system of fining those who did
not attend in propor time. The defendant kept very bad
time after the second week.

Mr. Beard called his client, who deposed that he gave
the plaintiff notice that ho should leave. Ho could not
submit to the systom of fines.

Plaintif called a witness, who said that Papworth did
givo notice, but after ho had given it he came back and
said, " I shall not come in the morning."
His Honour—ls it customary for cooks to give a week's
notice ?

Plaintiff—lt is.
Defendant—He sends away his servants at a moment's
notice.

His Honour ruled that defendant had quitted the ser-
vice without giving such a notice as that to which the
plaintiff was entitled, and, therefore, the plaintiff would
have a verdict for damages claimed.
Verdict for the plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.---This Day.

BOW-STREET.

ROBBERY AT DRURY-LANE THEATRE.—John Carter and
Mary Carter were placed at the bar, charged with stealing a
cloak. From the evidence of the superintendent of the
cloak department of the theatre, it appeared that, in con-
sequence of a number of robberies having been committed
in various parts of the theatre, the lessee had determined,

if possible, to discover the thieves, and additional police
officers had been placed in various parts of the house.
Last night the prisoner was observed leaving the theatre,
and hanging some inches beneath his light over coat
a portion of some other garment was observed by the wit-
ness. Suspecting the prisoner had stolen something from
tho balcony, he directed the attention of the police to the
circumstance, and he was followed outside the theatre,
where the female prisoner joined him. Ho was then taken
into custody, and, on searching him, the garment he had
concealed beneath his coat was discovered to be a
lady's cloak, which, on inquiry, it was found had
been stolen from a young lady from Leeds. The
prisoner on being taking into custody said the cloak be-
longed to his wife, the female prisoner, and she also said
the article was hers. The constable asked her to describe
the property, when she said it was a black cloth cloak
without trimming ; but the description did not agree with
the article in question, which was a brown sealskin cloak
and fully trimmed.

The female prisoner was discharged, but the man was
remanded for a week, in order, as ho refused to give his
address, that the police might have an opportunity of
making inquiries relative to him.