The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-05 00:00:00

Green. on sending in bit bill to Mr. Burgess, was
pay it shortly, and
told, first of all, by that gentleman, that Ite would
next, that be would speak to
Sir W. Beechey, Who was out of town, upon the
subject. Nov, if there was any mistake respecting
the agreement between Sir W. Beechey and Mr.
Burgess, his client ought not to suffer by it. He
should prove that his client had received an order
for the picture-frame from the defendant, and when
he had done that, he should be entitled to their
verdict.
As nobody appeared for the defendant, a verdict
for 151: was taken for the plaintiff.
GORDON V. THE SHERIFF OF MIDDLESEX.
This was au action of trespass on the case for seizing
and taking possession of the plaintiff's goods in execution.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS stated the case.
The plaintiff is a tobacconist residing in Holborn, and is
also the ostensible owner of a chandler's shop at Whetstone,
near Barnet. The plaintiff's daughter was married to a
person named Finlayson, who carried on business as a
draper, but becoming unfortunate, hie goods were sold
under a warrant of attorney. The plaintiff then took the
shop in question, and his son-in-law took care of the busi-
ness, which was carried on under the name of Gordon.
Some of Finlayson's creditors, however, considering that
the furniture and goods at Whetstone belonged to Finlayson,
took out an execution, which was handed to a sheriff's
officer named Willis, who proceeded to Whetstone, and
took possession of the shop-goods. The officer Nris in-
formed, that the property belonged to .fr. Gordon, and
that Finlayson was only a servant ; but he said he was in-
demnified, and placed a person in possession, who remained
in the hpuse for three days, and at the expiration of that
time, having reason to think that the property was not Fin-
layson's it was given up. It appeaed that the furniture and a
part of the goods taken possession at Whetstone,were formerly
the property of Finlayson, but that they had been purcha-
sed by Gordon at the sale; and it also appeared that Fin-
layson and his family were supported out of the proceeds
of the shop at• Whetstone. The officer seemed to have
conducted himselt without any unnecessary severity, and
when he discovered his mistake he sent to the plaintiff to
say he was willing to pi, the expenses of the action.
The Arroaaszar-Gaxtutax (for the defendant) said, :that
the Jury must be-of opinion that Finlayson was a tenant
at sufferance, acting for his own benefit and that of his
family, and not a hired servant acting for the benefit of
Mr. Gordon. If they believed this, the verdict must be
for the defendant; but, if they believed that Mr. Gordon
oEha TtE witansE forl said
thehal
considerationn his
opinionof the was the real proprietor of the house, he submitted that a
i
farthing damage would be ample remuneration for the in-
jury he had sustained.
Lordag es TN
juyGordonr.
TheyNvas
the owner of the house, and had the legal possession. He
was therefore entitled to a verdict. As to the amount of
dam
would consider all the circumstances, and give such damages
as they considered would compensate the plaintiff for the
injury he had sustained.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages On, Shilling.
After the verdict was re,,,
Lord TEHTEADEN said, I have the power to deprive the
plaintiff's attorney of costs in this case, and I shall exercise it.