The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-24 00:00:00

TILE LONDON, MONDAN, JAICUARY 24, 1842.

• gers ? lie most confidently gave it as his opinion that
there was no man who would hazard the responsibility.
Then, in the present instance, there had been no warrant
as against the plaintiff ; but that which it was stated the
defendant had acted upon had been distinctly directed
against the goods of the landlord. The Learned Judge
on the trial had been disposed to think that under the
clause in question the goods of the lodger (the plaintiff)
were liable, a4d had ruled accordingly, at the same time
reserving him leare to move the full Court upon the point.
Lord ABINGER said, if he rightly understood the
Learned Counsel, there had not been any summons
taken out as against the plaintiff ?
Mr. PLATT replied that there had not.
Lord ABINeSEB—Then there could not have been any
warrant issued to him, inasmuch as the summons was
the first step. There could be no warrant without a
summons.

Mr. PLATT had certainly conceived that there could
not. The Learned Gentleman then cited several cases in
support of his argument, and remarked that not only had
there not been any summons against the plaintiff, but
that it had subsequently turned out that there had not
been any summons served upon Duncan, the landlord,
upon which latter summons, it had been contended, the
warrant of distress had issued. There had certainly
been an attempt to prove that fact by the defendant, but
it had failed altogether ; whilst all that had been proved
had been, that there had been a warrant, and the legality of
the rate. There were three other points which he had put.
First, as he had stated, he had contended that the warrant
having been against the goods of the tenant, could not
legally be taken • then, that there had been no summons
given to the landlord, much less the tenant ; and next, it
had been submitted by the other side that there had been
no demand of the warrant at the time of the seizure.
Upon the last point the Learned Judge who had tried
the case had been in his favour.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON observed that, if upon mature
consideration of the whole case, the ultimate decision of
the Court should be that the goods of the tenant were
placed by the provisions of the Act of Parliament in the
same situation as though they had belonged to the land-
lord, then the demand for the warrant would become
material. But the demand, it appeared, had not been made.
Mr. PLATT—No. Then there had been another point.
It had been observed on the part of the plaintiff that a
man had no right to have bean left on the premises. He
was not aware of any enactment which, in such a case,
authorised the step of putting a man in possession of
the goods, under such a distress, upon the premises. The
property might be taken away and then sold, but there
was no authority given to place a man in possession of
the property on the premises.
The COURT granted the rule to show cause.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 22.
IN THE MATTER OF THE RBV. WM. BAILEY.

The insolvent in this case was the clergyman of a
chapel of ease at Tunbridge Wells, and had received his
license to preach there, but several creditors against the
Her. Gentleman having sued him for the building of the
same chapel, he was compelled to seek the benefit of
the Act.
After some conversation between Commissioner Bowen
and Mr. Nicholls the case was ordered to stand for hear-
ing on Wednesday week.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
CLEI?KENWELL.

On Friday, William Henry Mayden Gardiner, a master
cabinet-maker, residing in Noble-street, Clerkenwell,
was brought before Mr. Grimwood, charged by Mary
Ann Gardiner, his wife, a sickly-looking young woman,
who had scarcely a rag to cover her, with having de-
serted her, and leaving her chargeable to the parish.
The parish officers of Clerkenwell attended in support
of the prosecution.
The prosecutrix, who was in so feeble a state that she
could scarce give her evidence, being sworn, stated that
she was married to the prisoner at Birmingham, and she
eventually came with him to London, where he com-
menced business, but he represented that he was about
toproceed to South Australia, and requested her to go with
her infant back to Birmingham, and hewould send her down
the means to maintain her and her child, She remained
there for a considerable time, but never heard from the
prisoner, and she was reduced to the greatest necessity,
and her child died. She came to London in search of
the prisoner, and found him cohabiting with another
woman, when he refused to grant her the least assistance.
She was seized with typhus fever, and was admitted into
Greville-street Hospital, from which she was discharged
on Wednesday last, and having no place to go to, she
was wandering through the streets, perishing with cold
and hunger, when she was advised to apply to the over-
seers of Clerkenwell parish, who gave her some tempo-
rary relief, and took the prisoner into custody.
Mr, GREENWOOD inquired of the prisoner, what he
had to say ? Prisoner—She left me. It was an unfor-
tunate marriage ; we married young, and without the
consent of our friends. I struggled hard to support her,
and she left me for six months.
The prosecutrix positively denied this.
_

An overseer here stated, that the prisoner was keeping
another woman, with whom he was living, and from in-
quiries he had made, he was satisfied that there was no
blame attributable to the prosccutrix.
Mr. Gannziwoon—lf he don't allow her 4s. per week,
I shall commit him to the House of Correction, with
hard labour, for one month.
Prisoner (looking bitterly at his wife)—l would rather
be hung up at Newgate first.
He was then handed over to Waddington, the gaoler,
who locked him up.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

James Gray and William Fleming were charged with
having assaulted Mr. Balcomb, of Blenheim-street. It
appeared that Mr, Balcomb had let an apartment to a
journeyman tailor named Daly, but as this arrangement
was not very desirable, it was settled that Daly should
leave the premises after a particular day. Instead, how-
ever, of doing as wished, Daly kept possession of the
room, and in order to annoy the landlord as much as
possible, called in numbers of his friends (Irish jour-
neymen tailors), who kept up a continual noise by danc-
ing, singing, and shouting during the best part of the
night. The complainant finding the nuisance likely to
continue, engaged three or four stablemen from a neigh-
bouring mews to clear the room on Friday night. Ac-
cordingly, while the whole party of Irish tailors, about
two dozen in number, were in the midst of their uproar-
ious jollification, the stablemen made their appearance,
and having been set at defiance, went to work, and in a
twinkling cleared the room. The affrighted tailors went
pell-mell down the stairs. Several of them, however,
having seen Balcomb in the passage, dragged him into
the street, threw him down, and kicked him. The two
defendants, having.been identified as being engaged in
this attack, were taken into custody.
Mr. HARDWICKE said that Daly ought to have been
considered the ringleader ; his conduct was most unjus-
tifiable, and had he been one of the parties charged, he
would have been punished with the utmost severity of
the law.—The two defendants were then fined 4/. each.