Star.
London, England, 1830-06-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 2.
(Sittings at Nisi Fritts, before Lord TENTERDEN and Common
Juries.)
DAWSON v. wILLINGTON AND ♦NOTIIEB.
-- -

This was an action for entering the plaintiff's house,
and taking his goods under a distress for rent. The de-
fendants justified under the statute, which allows a
landlord to follow and seize the goods of his tenant
in cases where they have been fraudulently removed
for the purpose of avoiding the rent. It appeared that
the plaintiff, prior to the 26th of August last, had
been a tenant of the defendant Willington, of apart-
ments in Upper North-place, Gray's-inn-lane-road. On
August 25th he removed from those apartments, taking
his goods to No. 5, Gray's Inn-lane, and leaving unpaid
a sum of 2/. which became due to Willington for rent
on the following day. Willington having a few days
afterwards discovered that the plaintiff had taken a house
or apartments in Yardley-street, Spa-fields, authorised
the other defendant, Houghton, who was a broker, to
make a distress on those premises. The distress was
accordingly made on the 27th of August. An inventory
was made out, and the men remained in possession from
eleven o'clock in the morning till ten at night ; but the
goods were not removed, the distress being ultimately
abandoned. The plaintiff's witnesses swore that the
goods distrained had never been on the premises in Upper
North-place, but that fact was contradicted by a witness
called on the part of the defendants, who swore positively
to some pictures as having been there.
Lord TENTERDEN left two questions to the jury:
first, whether the goods bad been fraudulently removed
from Upper North-place : and next, whether the goods
distrained were those which had been on the promises.
If they negatived either of those questions, they would
find for the plaintiff, otherwise for the defendant.

The jury 'found for the plaintiff—Damages 408.
LOVERIDGE V. HODSOLL, ESQ.
This was an action to recover 51. 12s. 6d. the amount
of a certain assessment made by the Commissioners for
Paving, Lighting, and Watching, in the parish of St.
Pancras, appointed under a local act, passed in the 41st
year of the late King. The assessment had been made
in respect of two houses belonging to the defendant, on
the road leading to Hampstead, called Haverstock-hill,
and the question whether or not the defendant was liable
to pay it depended on the construction of the local act,
and the General Metropolitan Paving Act of the 57th
George 111. The defendant contended that the commis-
sioners (who sued on this occasion in the name of their
clerk, Mr. Loveridgo), had no right to take under their
jurisdiction any part of the Hampstead road lying north-
ward of the Regent's-canal.

Some facts Caving been proved on both sides,
A verdict was, by consent, taken for the plaintiff, sub-
ject to the opinion of the court above upon a case.

MARTIN V. sow Les:
This was an action against the proprietor of White
Conduit-house to recover the value of a great coat be-
longing to the plaintiff. It appeared in evidence that
the plaintiff, on the evening of the 10th of November,
1828, went, accompanied by an acquaintance, a journey-
man currier, to White Conduit-house, where an eighteen-
penny concert and ball was given by a club called the
Odd Fellows. The plaintiff and his friend left their
great coats in the care of a man named Smith, an occa-
sional waiter at the house, and received from him a ticket
for them. On inquiring for the coats at the conclusion
of the entertainments, the plaintiff's was not to be found.
An application was made respecting it, in August last,
to Mr. Monkhouse, the person who manages the business
at White Conduit-house, and he then stated that he would
stop out of Smith's wages the value of the coat.
The defence was, that Smith was not, on the evening
in question, employed by, or acting on the account of the
defendant, but was attending at the house as a member
of the club of Odd Fellows. To prove this, Smith him-
self and two waiters were called. From their evidence it
appeared that Smith obtained admission to the room 1
where the Odd Fellows were assembled without obtaining
one of the tickets which were issued at Is. 6d. each,
having gone there, as he said, " to try to pick up a few
shillings." It seemed pretty clear that he acted as a
waiter to the Odd Fellows and their party, but whether
with or without the defendant's knowledge did not dis-
tinctly appear.
Lord TENTRRDEIf told the Jury, that if they were of
opinion that Sthith had been permitted by the defendant
to act as a waiter on the evening iu question, the plaintiff
would be entitled to their verdict for the value of the coat.
If not, and they thought that he was acting as waiter
without the defendant's knowledge or permission, they
would find for the defendant.

Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 31. 10s.
DOE, EX DEM. PAGE, V. DAN I ELL, ESQ. A X D ANOTHER.

This was an action against Mr. Daniell and lir.Tor-
riano, barristers of the Chancery bar, to recover posses-
sion of the premises No. 41, Chancery-lane.
Those premises, it appeared, had been let by the lessor
of the plaintiff, Mr. Samuel Page, a surveyor, to Mr.
Bremridge, an attorney, for a term of twenty-one years.
The lease, which was dated the 30th December, 1828,
contained a clause prohibiting the lessee from assigning
the premises, or parting with the possession, without the
consent in writing of the lessor. It also contained a
covenant, on the part of the lessee, not to convert the
plemises into, or permit them to be occupied as chambers.
Mr. Bremridge having let the premises to the defendant
Daniell, without obtaining the necessary consent from
Mr. Page, and Mr. Daniell and Mr. Torriano having,

as it was alleged, converted them into chambers, the
present action was brought to recover possession under
the clause giving the lessor a right of re-entry in case of
a breach of any of the covenants.
For the defence, the draught of an assignment from
Mr. Bremridge to Mr. Daniell (to which Mr. Page's
name appeared as a consenting party) was put in. It
was signed by Mr. Page's son, Mr. Samuel Flood Page,
as having been approved by him, on the part of his
father ; and it was contended by the defendant's counsel
that this was a sufficient " consent in writing " to Mr.
Bramridge, to assign the premises. It appeared, how-
ever, by the evidence of Mr. S. F. Page, that although
lie acted generally as the agent of his father in the
management of his house property, all that he did was
subject to his father's approval, and he had no authority
to assent to the proposed assignment to Mr. Daniell.
His father, on being apprized of it, refused to ratify the
terms which he (the son) had acceded to.

Lord TENTERDEN observed, that from this evidence
it eras clear that Mr. Page, jun. had no authority from
his father to agree to the proposed assignment ; and if he
had, he (Lord Teuterden) should very much have doubted
whether it amounted to a " consent in writing," on the
part of the father, within the meaning of the lease.
Verdict for the plaintiff.