Star.
London, England, 1829-07-13 00:00:00

INTELLIGENCE.
IF KING'S BENCH, 3vis 11.
Sittings at NW Prins.
Several undefended causes on bills of exchange were
taken at the sitting of the Court. When these were dis-
posed of, the Common Jury causes were begun ; the first
case called on was,

STREEK V. GILL.

This action was brought to recover the value of cer-
tain goods taken from the plaintiff's house under a war-
rant of distress.

Mr. GURNEY (with whom was Mr. Com vN) stated
the case, and said this action was brought by the plain-
tiff, the tenant of the defendant, to recover a compensa-
tion for goods which had never been accounted for, and
hich had been taken under a distress warrant for the
rent of the house in which the plaintiff resided. He
should prove that valuable articles worth 1501. had been
taken for the rent, which was 211. and had never been
accounted for to the plaintiff; and he should also prove
that the inventory made by the broker did not contain
half the number of articles taken away, but that most of
them were afterwards exposed for sale in the shop of the
broker's son, without the plaintiff consenting to this pro-
ceeding; under these circumstances, the plaintiff was
obliged to bring his action against the landlord, whose
servant the broker was, to recover damages. He (Mr.
Gurney) should prove the value of the goods taken, and
should be entitled to the verdict of the Jury for the whole
sum above the amount of rent due to the defendant.
Several witnesses were called, who swore to many ar-
ticles of furniture not being accounted for by the broker,
and that considerable injury had been done to the premises
in pulling down fixtures.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL, for the defendant, said he
should prove that the wife of the plaintiff broke most of the
articles, to prevent the landlord getting the amount of his ,
rent, and what was not destroyed in this manner were
carried away by the mob which collected in consequence
of the chimney taking fire.
The broker's son swore, that when he went into the
house, the plaintiff and his wife were drunk, and that she
swept the crockery ware off the table and jumped on it till
it was broken to pieces ; and that he heard her say that
the defendant never should receive a farthing rent, for
she would burn the house, and all the goods it contained ;
the house was afterwards set on fire, and many articles
were taken away by the mob that collected.
Lord TENTERDEN summed up, and the Jury returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 801.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JIM' 11.
TILE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CLARY.

This was an information filed against William Clark,
and seeking to recover certain penalties from him for hav-
ing sold goods as an auctioneer, without being duly li-
censed. The information also sought to recover the
King's duty on the goods so sold.
It appeared from the statement of the Solicitor General,
and the evidence offered in support of the information, that
the defendant had advertised to sell some goods at Bark-
ing, in Essex, by public sale, and that upon the Excise
Officers remonstrating with him on the illegality of such
a proceeding, without being furnished with the usual
auctioneer's license, the defendant expressedhimself satis-
fied that the law was 6n his side. He had read the law,
he said, and it taught him that he could incur no penalty
unless he were to sell goods by public auction in the com-
mon way, or in other words, unless he were to knock
down the article to the highest bidder. In order to steer
clear of the penalties, he intended to sell the articles " by
hand." Selling "by hand," was described as being
done somewhat in the fashion of a Dutch auction. The
person selling fixed a price on each particular article, and
asked whether any of the parties present would give that
sum for it ? The price was lowered, in the event of a
refusal, until some bidder was at length found. Unfor-
tunately for the defendant, he had not read the law aright,
and the consequence was the present information.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in stating the case, laid
it down, and the Court concurred in the view of the law,
that any person selling goods at a sale which had been
previously advertised, no matter what form of sale may
be resorted to, is an auctioneer within the meaning of
the Statute, and as such is bound to take an auctioneer's
license, and to account for the King's duty for the arti-
cles sold by him.—Verdict for the Crown.

Ditree327,
ge• k Niq!. --).,
„.,,....:0..:v.,z.,:.
...5,...,,,......„. (1.1, . (7.k.
14.
'2lj % ..fo”
-"--- 4- I'r-
Al e\ •---C. w
•*--.."
.r.
... :
Ai'',. t 1.103`.
w;ror.l4l9V#T OF