The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-15 00:00:00

JUNE 15, 1850.

''..-'l)trb VOttion

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(bitiugs at Nisi Prins, at Westminster, before Lord
CAMPBELL and a Common Jury.)
MACGREGOR V. GALSWORTIIY.

This was an action ut trespass brought by the plaintiff,
Miss Macgregor, a lady residing in Welbeek-street,
against the defendant, to recover duin,ges for unlawfully
br. aking and entering her house.
Mr. Set* ant Wilkui a was counsel for the plaintiff, and
the defendant was represeLted by Mr. Whateley and
Sir John

It appeared that in April, 1849, two persons named
Wales and Wells brought an action te;ainst the plaintiff
in the Bloomsbury County Court, and recovered a ver
dict fur 191. 10-, 6J. debt and costs. On the lith of
that mouth the officers of the court went to the plain-
tiff's residettce to enter an execution for that sum, but
were unable to eff.ct an entrance through the door.
They returned in the evening, after the doors and win-
dows of the house had been bolted and barred, and
after having ineffectually attempted to enter by the front
door, proceeded to break open the window ant window-
shutters, and so got into the house through the window.
The window-shutter was driven in, and a large vase
which stood inside the window was broken by the party
who had thus violently effect. d an entrance into the
house. It was for this 'alleged trespass and damage that
the plaintiff now sought. to recover damages.
Mr. WHATELEY, for the defence, ventured to say that
this was nut the plaintiff's action, but had been got up
by other parties for their own gain. He (11r. Whateley)
admittt:d• that the defendant was personally liable for
any illegal act that &gin, fs*,e been done iu this case ;
but the defendant did not appear ever to have been cog-
nizant of tee circumstances; iu fact, he knew nothing
at all about the matter. He was entirely innocent, and
it would be a question for the jury to consider
whether the plaintiff had sustained any damage at his
hands. The plaintiff owed the money in question ; she
did not pay it; an execution was entered against her
goods, and the officers of the court were bound to exe-
cute their process: The questions for the jury were—
whether the front door of the plaintiff's house was open?
did the bailiff get in, and was he thrust out after he had
been in? Because, if that was true, there was no question
that if an officer of the law once fairly got into a house,
the door being open, and was thrust out again, he might
go in by any means he pleased afterwards.
Witnesses were called on the part of the defendant,
who proved that the officers had partly, in the first in-
stance, effected an entrance into the house, but were
thrust out again ; and then it was that they proceeded
to break into the house through the window. _

Lord:CAmPnELL summed up, but the jury had not
agreed upun their verdict when we went to press.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before lord Chief Justice WILDE
and a Common Jury.)
The case which the Court took was an action for
illegal seizure by the sheriff on.a bill of sale. The pro-
ceedings were uninteresting, of great length, and likely
to extend over the whole sitting.