The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-17 00:00:00

IN RE POLDEN AND POLDEN.

This was a meeting for the examination of debtors to the
estate, many of the claims being disputed. In one Mr.
Warrand appeared for the assignees and Mr. T. Beard for
the alleged debtor; but it appeared that one of the bank-
rupts had mitten a letter admitting there was only £1 due.
His Honour made no order, and the case stood over for the
assignees to look over the aocounts, as they had trusted to
the list of debtors returned in the balance-sheet.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.) ,
SINGULAR CASE OF LANDLORD AND TENANT.-COKEY V.

HOOPER.

This was an action to recover 4s. 6d. deposit paid to de-
fendant as guarantee for taking an apartment at his house.
The plaintiff stated that she called upon defendant and
agreed her to take a room. She complained that the room
was in a very dirty state, but defendant's daughter said it
should be cleaned. Upon this complainant paid a deposit
of 4s. 6d., and agreed to come in the following Monday at
ten o'clock in the morning. Defendant's daughter occupied
the room, and on the day appointed plaintiff went with her
goods, but found the place in such a dirty state, and the
room so full of smoke, that she refused to occupy it.
Defendant's wife said, "There is the room, take it or
leave it as you like. _ _

Plaintifinow sought to recover the deposit of 4s. 6d.
His Honour though the deposit should be returned, but
defendant urged that it should not. Plaintiff gave no time
for cleansing the room, and as to smoke, that was denied.
His Honour thought that defendant had no time to clean
the room.

Plaintiff—l agreed to send in at 10 o'clock, and at 10
o'clock I sent in.

The carman who took plaintiff's goods said the apartment
was in a filthy state and full of smoke.
Defendant—She took my room, and a few of her things
were moved in, and she has prevented me letting the room
to another person, so I do not see why I should return the
deposit.

His Honour—l think defendant had no timo to prepare
the place, and the plaintiff was in such a hurry to enter, I
can do nothing for her.
Verdict for defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.--(THIS DAY.)

BOW-STREET.
John Regan was placed at the bar charged with being
drunk and assaulting the police.
From the evidence of the landlord of the George public-
house, Great Queen-street, and two constables, F 75 and
F 132, it appeared that Ike prisoner, last night, was in front
of the bar of the above public-house drinking beer. As he
was partially intoxicated, the landlord told him he would
not serve him with any more drink ; upon which he became
abusive, and refused to pay for what he had already
had. The landlord then tried forcibly to eject him from the
house, and immediately he got him to the door he gave him
in charge of a police-constable who was standing outside
the house. 'A violent struggle ensued, during which police-
constable F 75 said he was struck by the prisoner, who had
been in prison for stabbing a policeman. Regan said,
" I've been in prison once for making four holes in the coat
of the iann that wore the number 75 beforo you, but I'll
make a doien in yours."
The other st
oliceman also assisted to convey the man to
the station-house.
The prisoner called two witnesses, who both swore they
saw the policeman, 75, draw his staff, but they could not
say whether the mark on the man's forehead was caused by
that weapon. He asserted that it was.
• Mr. Hall—to policeman 75—How was the injury caused
to this man's forehead ?
Policeman—He struck me on the breast, and I returned
the blow with my fist.
Mr. Hall—You did not say in your evidence you struck
the prisoner ?
Prisoner—You struck me on the mouth with your fist,
and on the head with your staff.
Mr. Hall (to Tyrrell, the gaoler)—Look at that wound,
and say if you think it has been caused by a man's hand.
Tyrrell—The place seems cut, and looks as if it had been
done with some rough substance.
Police-constable 132 F—The constable, 75, never drew his
staff.

Mr. Hall—l don't know that. If the constable did use
his staff he did so most improperly. Such an instru-
ment should never be used except in cases of absolute
necessity; and I must say that I have considerable
doubts in my mind about the case. On the one hand
the two constables say the staff was never used, while on
the other the two witnesses called by the prisoner say that
it was. Their evidence was not altogether satisfactory, as
they differed in some material points. I shall, therefore,
discharge the prisoner, but I wish the landlord of
the public-house to remove a notion he appears to
entertain, that he can call upon the police to
take a man into custody because he refuses to pay for drink
supplied. He has no power to give a man into custody of
the police for doing so. The police must not bo called upon
to assist a man to collect a debt. if a man refuses to pay
for drink supplied ho must be sued in the usual way.