The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-18 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sitting; at Nisi Prius in London.—Before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Common Jury.)
LUDFORD V. AMMAN AND BELL.-TRESPASS.

This was an action 'to recover damages for tres-
pass in seizing the plaintiff's goods under two
executions against a Mr. Judkins.
Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Griffith appeared for
the plaintiff, Mr. Skinner for the defendant Bell,
and Mr. Carnock for Aikman.

The plaintiff's case was that Judkins formerly
carried on business at 98, Fleet-street, selling gas
regulators and sewing machines, which were patent
articles. At the latter end ofDec., 1857, he sold
his business and stock to the plaintiff, who had
previously had dealings with him. The price was
£123 55., and the plaintiff gave his bill for the
amount. The bargain was reduced to writing, it
being part of the terms that the plaintiff should
take the premises in Fleet-street for a year, Mr.
Judkins reserving to himself the first floor. The
plaintiff afterwards brought a considerable quan-
tity of other property upon the premises. On March
25th the defendants, with a person named Overall,
an officer, went to Fleet-street, and seized the whole
of the property, under two executions against Mr.
Judkins, for £l4 7s. 3d. and £6l9s. ld. The things
were removed the next day, and retained until
about the middle of April, when 'after some inter-
pleader proceedings they were returned:
In the course of the plaintiff's case terms of set-
tlement were agreed upon between the parties.
Mr. Skinner said as Mr. Aikman was an officer
of the corporation, it might be as well to state that
there was no reflection upon his character ; and as
regarded Mr. Bell, though himself an attorney, he
had on this occasion 'acted only as clerk to some
other attorneys, and did as he was directed, so that
there could be no imputation upon him.
_ _ . .

Mr. Charnock said Overall was an officer him-
self of the' corporation, and Mr. Aikman had
nothing to do with the transaction.
A verdict was entered by consent for the defen-
dant Aikman, without costs, and against the defen-
dant Bell—damages X 5 ss.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
'WALLIS V. WALLIS.-CRUELTY.

The petitioner in this case was the wife of a gun-
maker in Jermyn-street. She- was married to the
respondent in 1843, and had four children. She
charged him with striking her on the face, locking
her in her bedroom, depriving her of her clothes
and jewels, using threats and other acts of cruelty.
These allegations were proved by her own evidence
and that of servants and other witnesses.

Mr. W. Barry and Mr. E. Hanson were counsel
for the petitioner, and Dr. Spinks for the respon-
dent. The learned counsel adduced no evidence for
the defence.

Sir C. Cresswell said that issues were frequently
raised in that court that were of far greater social
importance than any of those questions of contract
or debt which juries had so often to decide. It
was not the policy of the law to grant separations
on trivial grounds, of from any mere incompatibility
of temper. Husbands and wives might make each
other as wretched as they pleased provided they
only kept hands off, and refrained from threats from
which violence might reasonably he apprehended.
His lordship having summed up the case,
The jury found that the respondent had been
guilty of cruelty.