The Sun.
London, England, 1811-08-20 00:00:00

COOPER V. COT.

The plaintiff in this case was a.Genilatnan's ger-.
vane, whose wife kept a small chandler's shop, at a
vidage near Chichester, and the Defendant was a
grocer at Chi Chester.
Mr. Serjeant REST stated, that the aelion was
brought to recover damages for a most unfeeling
• trespais,, in entering the poor woman's shop, and
sweeping away all her little stock in trade, without
any authority, and against the will of the.plaintitf.,
It was true that the .plaintiff was indebted to the
defendant in a small sum of money, and perhaps

he thought he was entitled to pay himself in this
manner ; but his Lordship would tell the Jury that,
he had no right to take back in. this manner, even
the very identical goods which he had himself sold
to tiled], much less con with his cart and horse at
six in the morning and carry oil' every movable ar-
ticle hb could find.: The, consequence was, that
possessing a very thriving little trade, totally de-
troyed it, and the poor- woman was deprived of
the means of suppbrting herself and two infant
children.

To prove this case, the mother of the plaintiff's
wife was called, who stated, that a young titanof
the `name of Wigney, a servant of the defendant,
came with a horse and cart,. and insisted on having
a quantity of plated pork, which vi,As in'the hotise;
he atterWards took away all the groceries, and hav—
ing got all the dead stock; he Wanted the, sow and
pigs, and ail the live stocL She told him 'he
should not have iv; but he took it away-by ' force,
after giving. her an inventory of the articles thken,
and which he valued at 50 or 661.—0 n .cross-exa-
mination, she admitted. that her daughter Owed tho,
plantitr 40 or 501. •
For the defendant, Mr. GA RROW stated, he should.
prove by Wigney, the carman, that the plaiotitf
being indebted to: the defendant in upwards of 401.
and not being able to pax him, in a sodden fit of
honesty proposed that the defendant should take the
goods in question as part payment of the debt,
which he acceded to,
,and sent.to fetch them away
accordingly, and the old woman, who had sworn
that: they, were.taken by force, was the hand that
weighed them,, and fixed the prices to the various
articles. He should only add, that t(te whole stock
of this thriving trade, which was stated to be mined
by this transaaion, amounted to gl. 2s.
Wigney havihg proved these faaS, the Jury Nunti
a verdict for the defendant.

NAMED V. TOM,SETT.

This was an action to recover dlrnni,7'n 1:7"
assault. The plaintiff and defer-10am. . t, 10
farmers at Wadhurst,. in this cooety. dispute
arose out of a hunting match, in plain-
tiff's clogs had ;one over the deftn,;(-140:' l,inds. The
circumstance cccurrcd on tht: 25'h iit January last.
The plaintiff was riding along's! e I ,ne at:joining to
the deiendant's lands, when the latter abused him
in very ()Arse language tot buillumg Ins (togs to go
over his lands. The *held replied, he had not
himself been on his Lillis, but he could not pcevent
the dogs straying.,, After some few
,words mere the
defendant struck the .plaintiffia the face, and drove
him-some paces backwards.
The 'Jury found for the plaintiff—dumages 20$.
CROWN 'SIPE.
mum .IENVXTOT S.
Joka Bates Shuckard Was charged ots Several in.
.cliettnots.with various frauds, effected 'by the fol..
lowing contrivances,' On the With of July he went
to
_the Shp, :at Brighton, which isliept by a
persun of the 'name of 'Bhuckard, and introduced
himself as a namesake. He told the landlord that
he knew his brothers very wed, and that he had
lately seen his younger brother, 'who had sent him.
a letter and a parcel, and was surprised that he had.
net received any answer in return. The landlord,
who.is a GertllB4l,. Sdid, that he was very glad to see
a namesake, as he never knew 'of one in England,
and treated him hospitably, recomMending him to
lodge at ,a neighbeur's.' A• day or two afterwards at
dinner, he related a story of the apprentice boy
where he 'lodged having stolen a watch, and added,
as he ,was a dealer in lace,.he had considerable pro-
perty about him, Wttltdi he would thank the land-
lord to take care of. He then produced a 5001,-and
a 501. note, and said, " you see here is 5501:" these
notes he then sealed upiin a piece of paper, and de-
livered them to Shuckard, the landlord. He after-
wards went about the town and boosht a variety'of
articles of lace, jewellery, etc. referring to the land-
lord for his responsibility, who re,olly answered, he
hail deposited considerable property with him. This
obtained him credit, and he got the goods of several
tradesmen, with which he decamped, and Suspicion
arising, the-deposited notes were examined, •when
they turned out to be shatri notes, but so closely'
resembling Bank -Notes, that the difference is not
visible on an ordinary inspectiOn. The word
" Fleet" is introduced in small letters scarcely vial-.
ble, and the word " Pence" is substituted tar
pounds ; the corner letters are white on a black
'ground, exactly resembling the gentility Bank note.'
The prisoner was acquitted on the charge of
frauds on a deficiency of evidence, but he was con-
victed of publishing a note with the sum expressed
in white lAters on a black
,ground," which, by
the Bank Act, is a Misdemeanour, subject to stx
months imprisonMent, which sentence hereceived.,

The horse and gig, stolen from the Nursery,
New-road, St. Marylebone, about two o'clock
the morning of the 291 b of July, were taken to
Seagrove, -a village in Leicestershire, l 20 miles from
London, by ten o'clock the same night. The rob-
bers were detetred there, and taken back to Leices-
ter, where they were tried, and one of iiiem 114 n.
Martin, east for death ; but he has since been re-
prieved for ttansportatiou.

LAW REPORD.

COURt OF CHANCERY, AtG. t 9

li-FARTS 'THOMPSON, IN THE MATTER OF CAITELL

AND DISTON.

This wasa. new case; Castell and Diston had de-
posited 2,0,0001,'s worth of goods with Heywood
and C 0..; Heywood and CO. advanced them 10,0001.
upon the deposit. They soon after sold the goods,
50001.'8. worth to a stranger, and 15,0001.'s worth
back to Castell and Diston themselves. Castell and
Diston:becatiie' bankrupts; and ,the question was,
whether they had 'Originally transferred the legal
right in the property to Heywood and Co. ; whe-
ther the consequent sale w's a good one; and-whe-
ther Heywood and Co. should prove in the com-
mission under the original7debt of the 10,e001. or
under the sale of the 1.5,0001'5. worth of goods.—.-
The case was argued with great ingenuity by, Sir
SAMUEL ROMILLY and Mr.,MONTO.GUE, for prov-
ing under the 10,0061. and by'Mr. HART and -Mr.
Cou.sm for the proof under the sale.
The Lotto CHANCiLLOR, decided in favour of the
former.

Ex-pane J. BENJAPIELD, Esq. in thcmatter.ofJOHN
MICHAEL LE HEUP, Egq. a lunatic; and in
also, Ex•parte MARY WYCKE' LE,HEUP, 41 the
matter of the same Lunatic.