The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-02 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

COUPENSATION.—In the Court of Common Pleas before•
Mr. Justice Willes, the case of the Metropolitan Railway
v. Cross was heard. This was an action for use and occu-
pation. The plaintiffs claimed as assignees of a lease
from a Mrs. Ackerman, of a house in Chapel-street.—
Mr. Torr referred to " Churchward v. Ford," 35, Law
Journal, and upon this authority contended that,Mr.
Cross had never become the tenant of the railway oom-
pany, but had occupied always under Mrs. Ackerman and
paid rent to her alone.—Mr. Justice Willes:observed. that
as the defendant had occupied without paying rent to any
one for two years and a half it, might be inferred that rent
was due to the owner of the house.—After some discussion
of the terms of the statute of Anne, Mr. Torr gave way,
and a verdict passed for the plaintiff for £175.

ACTION AGAINST AN ATTORNEY.—In the Court
of Exchequer, before Mr. Baron Channell,
Mr. Keniot, an attorney, had an action brought
against him by a publican, named Wickham, under the
following circumstances. The plaintiff had been in the
habit of lending money upon mortgage of leaseholds and
other security. The defendant was an attorney. The
plaintiff, having a sum of £4OO which he wished to advance,
employed the defendant as his attorney in effecting the
investment. In the result the money was advanced upon
mortgage of a leasehold house in Boyle-street, Saville-
row. According to the plaintiff's case he employed
the defendant to act for him, upon the terms that
the- latter should make all usual inquiries and inves-
tigations, and should take care that the security
upon which the loan was to be made should be good and
sufficient. He further sought to shew that, in fact, the
lease mortgaged was of no value as a security, being at a
rack rent. And for this alleged negligence and the loss
resulting from it he sought to recover damages. For the
defendant it was maintained that he had only been
employed for the legal part of the transaction, and that
the plaintiff had distinctly taken upon himself the respon-
sibility as to the character and adequacy of the security.
It was further maintained that the mortgage and certain
promissory notes which were taken as collateral security
were, in fact, sufficient. The jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff with £3OO damages, leave being reserved to
move to set this verdict aside.

VICTIMISING A MONEY LENDER.—At the Greenwich
Police-court Charles Arthur Mackrell, appeared to a sum-
mons under the Bailee and Trustees' Act, charging him
with fraudulently making away with certain articles of
household furniture, assigned by him to Mr. John
Baugham, of 34, Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane,
on advancement of a loan of £3O. The evidence taken
disclosed a rather singular state of circumstances. In
November last the defendant applied to the prose-
cutor for a loan of £3O. IV prosecutor, thinking
him young and under age, questioned him, when he stated
to him that he was between 24 and 25 years of age, and
was about being married. The prosecutor refused to
advance him the money upon his own security, and the
lefendant then introduced a man, supposed to be his in-
tended father-in-law, as joint security, an assignmentbeing
also executed by him upon certain articles of furniture
which he had at a house. The accused agreed to pay off
the money by instalments, the first of which was met;
but when the second became due a few days grace was
asked for. The money was not paid, and on inquiries
being made subsequently it was ascertained that on
the 25th of January of the present year (two days before
the second instalment became due) the defendant obtained
a loan of £9 ss. upon certain of the articles duly assigned
to the prosecutor, from Mr. King, an auctioneer at Dept-
ford, the defendant signing a conditional agreement, that
if the goods were not redeemed by a given date they were
to be sold by auction and forfeited. The goods were not
redeemed, and they were sold accordingly, realising
£9 Bs. It was also proved that shortly prior to obtain*,
the loan of the prosecutor, the goods, of which those sold
formed a part, had been obtained of a furniture dealer at
Deptford, £l3 being only paid off an account of £42 odd
by the defendant, who had removed from Deptford to
Greenwich. The summons was adjourned.