The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-07 00:00:00

KING'S•BENCH--(THIS DAY.)

THOMAS V. LAMBERT.

This was an action brought by a house-painter against Mrs.
Maria Lambert, to recover the balance of an account due for
painting, papering, and making various repairs in two houses
belonging to her in Kennington-street. The account was ori-
ginally 301. 4s. 5d., but a portion had been paid, and a sum of
5/. I6s. 3d. had been paid into Court. The defence was, that
the work had not been properly executed, and it was also
pleaded that an agreement had been entered into that the work
should be finished at a certain time or the payment forfeited ;
and that as the work was not completed within the time spe-
cified, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

Mr. MANSELL appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. PLATT for
the defendant.

Several witnesses were examined on either side ; and, after
consulting for a few minutes, the Jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—M.

THE KING V. DAVIES.

This was an indictment for an assault. The prosecutor,
Mr. James Davis, was a surgeon, residing in Red Lion-square,
and the defendants, Henry and David Davis, were the sons of
a Sheriff's officer, residing in the same place. A report had
been circulated relative to the son of a Mr. Davis of Red
Lion-square having committed a forgery upon his father, and
as both the parties had sons, and resided there, much anxiety
was felt to ascertain which of the families the report concerned.
The prosecutor having mentiened to a friend that such a report
was in circulation, the two defendants waited upon him, and he
denied that he was the author of it, and referred them to the
person from whom he had heard it. In a fortnight afterwards
they again called upon the prosecutor, and committed the as-
sault which was the, subject of the present action. The de-
fendant Henry had pleaded guilty, and the question was whe-
ther the other defendant David had been a party to it.
Mr. THEOBALD appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr. Hum-
PHREYS for the defendants.

The prosecutor, Mr. James Davis, deposed that in the
month of May, 1834, he was with a lady, a patient, in his
consulting room, when he was called into his surgeiy, and
found there the two defendants, Henry and David Davis.
Henry caught him by the collar, and, pulling a whip from un-
der his coat, said he would inflict punishment upon him which
he deserved, arid struck him with the whip over the head.
David, the other defendant, struck him in the face, and his
shirt and clothes were very much torn.
Cross-examined by Mr. HumPutteys--The defendants had
called upon the prosecutor on a former occasion, and had
charged him with circulating a report that one of them had
committed a forgery upon his father. Witness denied that he
had ever circulated such a report. Witness had asked a patient
of his, a Mr. Abraham, on a former occasion, if he had heard
of such a report ? Witness had heard the report previously
from a Mrs. Brickman, and mentioned this to the defendants.
-Three other witnesses proved the assault.
Mr. HUMPHREYS addressed the jury for the defendant. With
respect to the defendant Henry Davis, he pleaded guilty. He
admitted the assault, but as regarded David, the other defendant,
he would prove to them he was not the person who committed
it, but another brother named Isaac. He would call Isaac
Davis, who would acknowledge to them that he was the per-
son who accompanied his brother Henry. The assault could
not be justified he admitted, but the young gentlemen had felt
indignant at the report that was circulated concerning them,
and in a moment of irritation had horsewhipped the plaintiff.
Mr. James Phineas Davis, an attorney, deposed that he saw
his two brothers, Henry and Isaac Davis, go on the day in
question to the house of the plaintiff and return again.
Henry Davis, one of the defendants, deposed that it was his
brother Isaac who accompanied him when he committed the
assault. His brother Isaac appeared with witness before the
Magistrate, but the prosecutor refused to swear against him.
Phineas Davis, father of the defendants, deposed that his
son David did not leave the dinner table from the time his other
two sons went to the prosecutor's ,until they returned. When
before the Magistrate, the prosecutor said Isaac was not the
person who assaulted him.

Isaac Davis deposed that he accompanied his elder brother
Henry to the prosecutor's the day the assault was committed.
His brother David was not present.
The servant who attended the table deposed that Mr. David
Davis did not leave the house from the time the other two
went out till they returned.
Abraham Davis, another brother, gave similar evidence.

Mr. THEOBALD replied.
Lord DENMAN said the only question for the Jury to decide
was whether David was the person who accompanied the de-
fendant Henry. If they were satisfied of this they must find
him guilty, and if not they would acquit him.
The Jury after deliberating for about ten minutes returned a
verdict of Guilty.

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)

ATKENS V. MANNING.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a lady of large
fortune, against the defendant, Captain Manning, who is her
brother, to recover damages for certain libellous and slander..
ous expressions, alleged to have been used by the defendant
with respect to the plaintiff. The damages were laid at a very
high amount—we have heard 10,000/. stated. On the case
being called on— _

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he would strongly recom-
mend the parties to endeavour to settle the matter amicably.
It was very distressing to have affairs of a private nature, and
the quarrels of parties so nearly connected with each yther,
brought forward in this public manner, and he would therefore
advise the parties to retire, and try if they could not agree to
refer it to some person whom they might choose, or otherwise
to settle the matter, without bringing it into Court.
The Counsel and parties accordingly retired upon his Lord-
ship's suggestion, and after an absence of about twenty mi-
nutes they returned into Court, when—
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, who appeared for the plaintiff,
said he had prevailed on his client to accede to his Lord-
ship's suggestion, to refer the case to a private investiga-
tion, although she strongly objected to doing so, as she
thought it might not be so satisfactory to some persons
as an open trial. From the nature of the case, and the
near relation between the parties, he endeavoured to show
her that it would be much better if this investigation should
take place before a private tribunal, and he at length, and
with great difficulty, obtained her consent.

Sir—JoHN CAMPBELL, who appeared for the defendant, said
he would merely observe that his client was as anxious as the
plaintiff that his conduct should be strictly and publicly inves-
tigated ; but under his (Sir J. Campbell's) advice, his client
was prevailed upon to accede to the suggestion of the Court.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the- Learned Counsel
had exercised a very sound discretion, and a very sound and
temperate judgment in the advice they had given. The mat-
ter would be investigated before a private tribunal in a more
searching manner than by a public judicial inquiry. He was
extremely glad that the suggestion he had thrown out had
been acceded to by both parties.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Rochester,
and several other gentlemen were in Court, having been sub.
pcenaed to give evidence in this case.

EXCHEQUER COURT-(THIS DAY.

UNDERWOOD V. BURROWS.

The pleadings having been opened by Mr. MANSELL,
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS said the action was brought by a
lodger against his landlord, for a series of annoyances which
could scarcely be heard detailed without laughter, but by which
the plaintiff had lost a considerable part of his trade. The
plaintiff was a tailor, who, in 1832, took in the house of the
defendant four rooms, for which he agreed to pay 281. a. year.
After be had occupied them for some months, the plaintiff met
with two gentlemen, to whom he underlet two of the rooms for
14s. a-week. The defendant seemed to be rather envious of
his (the plaintiff's) good fortune, and, as he could not give him
notice for a considerable time, he fell upon the plan of giving
the plaintiff and his family all the annoyance in his power, so
as, if possible, to drive him out of the house. The first
plan the defendant hit upon was to remove a water-closet
which stood on the first floor landing, by which the family were
obliged to go through a yard filled with workmen. Finding
that that plan did not succeed, the defendant, being a painter,
mixed some nasty stuffs and daubed all the bannisters and
staircase and the doors of plaintiff's rooms. The smell was
very offensive, and the stuff, whatever it was, never dried, so
that a customer going up to the plaintiff's workshop could
scarcely proceed so far without -spoiling his clothes. As that
also was put up with, the defendant thought of another plan.
There was a skylight which lighted the garret stairs, which
the plaintiff used to put up in order to have a free circulation
of air ; that was first padlocked, and in a few days after the
glass was removed and boards nailed over it, so that the stair-
case was left in total darkness, and that also when the stairs
were in the filthy state which he bad before described.
Again the wire of the bell was cut six or seven different
times, so that the customers and friends of the plaintiff
could not get admittance to him ; some of them used
the knocker, but that was immediately taken off, and when
any one called for the plaintiff, the family of the defendant de-
nied that the plaintiff lived there, and said he had run away to
some place unknown to them, so that he had lost many of his
customers. The case was extremely ludicrous, but he trusted
that the Jury would give it their serious attention, and award
such damages as they thought the plaintiff entitled to—all they
would give him would not compensate him for the annoyances
and loss of trade.

The Learned Sergeant proved his case by several witnesses.
Mr. PETERSDORFF then rose to address the Jury on the part
of the defendant, and said he would call several witnesses, who
would prove that the plaintiff had no right to the skylight or
the water-closet, for they were not put up till months after he
had been in the house. As to the taking down of the knocker,
and the cutting of the bell wire, they were not brought home
to the defendant, and might be the result of some boy's mischief.
He called Robert Lockwood, who was under examination
when our reporter left.

GERMANY.—VIENNA, JAN. 26.—Prince Ester-
hazy leaves Vienna to-morrow, to return to London by way of
Paris. Count Fiquelmont, our Ambassador at -St. Peters-
burgh, has obtained leave of absence on account of ill health;
and his place will be filled during his absence by Count Col.,
loredo-Wallsee, now Ambassador at Dresden. The SecAind
Chamber of the Estates of the kingdom of Hanover resolved,
on the 244 of January, to appoint a committee of five mem-
bers to communicate with the Government in order to obtain
all necessary information respecting the resolution of the Ger-
man Diet for the establishment of a Tribunal of Arbitration
for the States of the Confederation. The motion for the ap-
pointment of this committee was made by Dr. Cristiani, who
showed the necessity of it, on account of the uncertaint2;
since the publication of the resolution of
the Tribunal of Arbitration -Diet respecting
connected with it, otit. remained in several points