The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. —(This Day.)

CITY SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast.)
MASON V. CNAPMAN.
This was an application for a new trial. It appeared
that the plaintiff was a manufacturer of paper bags for
biscuits, &c., and brought an action to recover the
amount of an order alleged to have been given by de-
fendant, who carries on business at Wisbeach. On the
trial his Honour said be was not satisfied that the order
had been executed according to the directions, and gave
a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff now pressed
for a new trial.
Mr. Buchanan, Batinghall-street, said he appeared
for the defendant, who was not present, as he (Mr.
Buchanan) bad written to him not to go to the expense
of coming to London.
His Honour said it was very good advice, for there
were no grounds for the application—the case had been
very fully heard. There was no doubt that there had
been a mistake in consequence of the loose manner of
doing business, in not getting a written order on the
sample.
The plaintiff insisted that the order bad been given as
he had stated, and asked for a nonsuit, so that the case
might be beard at Wisbeach.
Mr. Buchanan objected to a nonsuit, and opposed the
motion for a new trial.
His Honour said there could be no doubt that there
had bee❑ a mistake, which frequently arose from the
bustle of a market•day in a country town, and travellers
being too ready to take a nod, a wink, or a smile at a
tavern as an order. He could not grant a new trial.
The application was dismissed with costs.

SECONDARIES COURT.
(Before Mr. Secondary Potter.)
HENDERSON V. TOMLINSON.

EXTRAORDINARY PAWNBRORING.—The plaintiff in
this case is a dentist residing in Church-row, Beauvoir-
town, and brought an action in trover against the defend-
ants, who are pawnbrokers in the neighbourhood of Bryan-
stone-square, to recover the ialue of certain goods alleged
to have been illegally detained by them.
The case was heard yesterday, and occupied till a late
hour.

The defendants, having allowed Judgment to go by de-
fault, this was an inquiry to assess the value of the pro-
perty. The facts of the case were these. In August, 1855,
the plaintiff took apartments (9 rooms) in a house in
Orchard-street, Portman-square, the other part of the
house was unoccupied, and the plaintiff had not been in
possession long before a distress was put in on his
goods, the rent not having been paid to the
superior landlord by the person from whom he took the
premises. Not being at the time in a position to pay the
arrears, he applied to the defendants to advance the amount
on the security of the property on the premises, and this
they agreed to do. The distress was accordingly paid out,
and the defendants took the property to a warehouse. The
plaintiff subsequently paid the amount advanced, with
interest, at the rate of 20 per cent., and some of the pro-
perty was given up ; but it was alleged that defendants
had kept back china and other articles of value, which
plaintiff alleged to be worth at least 701. or 801. In sup-
port of this, the plaintiff and his wife were examined, and
swore as to the correctness of a list of the articles and
their value. The broker who made the distress proved
that the rent due was 33/., and he had seized goods
which bad been valued at 40/., but be had not
taken any account of the remainder, nor did he see the con-
tents of the drawers.

Greenhill, an assistant to the defendants, was called,
and admitted that some articles were sold for 2/. ss. be-
fore the time to redeem them had expired, but as the goods
hail been taken into stock he could not say what belonged
to the plaintiff, but admitted some had been retained, and
had been examined for sale.

The learned secondary said the plaintiff was entitled to
the full value of the goods, and the jury must make the
best of the evidence on that point.
The jury retired for a short time and then gi.vo a verdict
for 60/.