The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-23 00:00:00

The CommoN SERJEANT stated the cpsc. The
claimants are attornies, and they sought for compen-
sation under the New Act, for the loss they sus-
tained by being compelled to give up their premises,
consisting of apartments on the first floor of the
house No. 128, Upper Thames-street. In this case
the claimants altered their situation for the better,
for they were now at the foot of Southwark-bridge,
in a much more quiet, airy, and respectable situation.
They were not likely to do themselves much good
by making an enormous demand, except in one re-
spect. Future claimants must be so taken with the
ingenuity of the two gentlemen, in standing forth
with any thing like a claim at all, that it would be
but reasonable to suppose that solicitors who had
displayed such talent in a case of their own, would
be the very best men to apply to for assistance in
obtaining recompence.
The following is the claim, the items of which
caused some in Court to smile :
By the loss of practice occasioned Ly the said

Francis Child and Charles Mann's being
compelled to quit their offices, No. 128,
Upper Thames-street, and by the loss of
time occupied in looking out for offices and
in the removal of the books, deeds, and
papers £soo 0 0
By the loss of half a year's rent of the offices,
128, Upper Thames-street, it being abso-
lutely essential to get premises as near as
possible to the previous situation, and there
being no possibility of getting any eligible
situation for that purpose without taking
them as from the half-quarter before
Christmas 42 10 0
By the expences incurred in moving to the

.
present. offices
Unexpected term of 11 years, at Si years' .
purchase ...
Fixtures remaining. on the premises as valued 100 0 0

£943 1 8
The claimants hal, it appeared, already removed
to a place in which they transact business.
The Committee of the Bridge-house Estates
offered the defendants the sum of 55., in order to
bring the case to trial.
Three surveyors prom' that the apartments in
question had been rack-rented, and therefore the
lease was of no value. The rent. of 701. per annum
now paid for them was the full annual value.
Mr. PLATT very ably contended that the removal
of the house in which his clients carried on business
was calculated to be very injurious to the business of
an attorney, and called witnesses to prove the injury.
A person, who had been clerk to the claimants,
stated that they had good connexions and business.
The business, which had been increasing, was to the
extent of about 1,5001. a year. They had fifty, or
perhaps a hundred clients, and they ran the hazard
of losing clients in consequence of the inconvenience
of the place in which they now carried on business.
On his cross-examination, witness said that the
claimants had lost nothing by going from the Bo-
rough, where they formerly resided, to Thames-
street ; but they must lose by leaving Thames-
street. Many of the clients lived at the other side
of the water, and although they were some of them
men of great affluence, they would not like to pay
pence a-piece to cross the Southwark-bridge to go
to the office. There was one gentleman, and a
very liberal one too, who was worth upwards of
100,0001., and that gentleman would not like to pay
a penny.
The RECORDER—What ! if he had to transact
business to the amount of 2,0001. or 3,0001., would
he hesitate to pay a penny ?
Witness did not mean that; but the rich man
would not like to pay.a penny to cross the bridge.
Thought the claimants' demand of 500/. for the in-
' jury of removal very inadequate, and that 2,000/.
ought to be the amount demanded.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Elwes,- a respectable surveyor, considered the.
apartments to be worth 1001. a year.
The RdeORDER summed up, and told the jury to
make a fair
assessment, but not to allow themselves
to be influenced by any fanciful matters.
The Jury retired, and returned a verdict assessing
the claim as , follows :—Lease, Is.; good-will, Is..
the other.items, including fixtures, 1471. 16s. Bd.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE.