Star.
London, England, 1828-12-04 00:00:00

ASHLEY V. HUGHES AND OTHERS.

This was an action by the assignee of an insolvent
debtor, named John Knott, to recover the value of cer-
tain household goods, alleged to have been illegally
seized by the defendants, under a distress for rent.
' The case proved for the plaintiff was this:in March,
1827, Knott became the tenant of the defendant Hughes
of a house in George-street, Minotiei; at the• rent of
fifty pounds per annum; Knott took possession at Lady
Day, 1827, and paid the first quarter's rent ;but having
subsequently fallen into pecvniary difficulties, some ar-
rears became due; in discharge of the half year's rent
to Christmas,lB27, he paid 171. leaving an arreat of 81..
Having subsequently gone to prison, Hughes put a dis-
tress into his house for 251. the amount of the half

year-up to Christmas, making no deduction 'of the'l7l.
previously 'paid on account. Under the distress, the ,
whole f Knott's goods were sold, having been appraised
at only 291. though their teal value. was supposed to be
between 561. and 6W. It was now contended that the
diitress was altogether illegal,inasmuch assn the agree-
ment fnr letting the house there was no reservation as
to payment of the rent, and there( .re none s'as de=
swindable until Lady-day,lB2B. Lord Tenterden, how-
ever, held that as the fist 'quarter had been paid at
Midsummer, it might be pteiumecrthit the remainder
was to be paid quarterly. The'plaintiff's Counsel (Mr.
Brodrick) then submitted, that as there was only an
arrear of 81. due at the time the distress was pot in for
• 251. the plaintiff was entitled to recover the difference
between the 81. and the actual value of theloods.
Mr. BROUGHAM addressed the Jury for the defen-
dants, and called 'a witness *hit -proved that in Feb.
1827, a short time befote the distress was made, he, by
deAte of Hughes, called on Knott with a 'receipt fur
25/. the amount of the half year's rent due at Christmas,
and that Knott did not at that time deny that the rent
was due, but stated that he was' not prepared to pay it,
nnless'the witness would take a bill of exchange which
he had got, for a larger amount, and pir, him the dif-
ference.—The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
WIZARD V. Wind&
This was an action by a lodging house keeper at.
Lincoln, against a sporting Gentleman, to recover 541.
12 . for 26 weeks lodging at the plaintiff's house, at
two guineas per week. The plaintiff's case was proved
by the plaintiff's daughter, who 'was cross-examined by
Sir Jams Scarlet', fir the defendant, with A view to
show that the itidgings Sea' occupied jointly' by the
defendant antra Gentleman of the name- of Melville,
and that only a guinea or a guinea and a half a week
- was to be' paid-breach of them. it appeared thar the
two Gentlemen had each a bed room, but they uccupied
the same sitting room ; and 'it was contended for the
,defendatit that the chstge of two guineas a seek to
each cf them was ucte .sonable. Mr. Melville, as well

as the defendant, had. objected to pay it, but he having
"' since died; the plaintiff had leccived the-amount of his
"demand from his executor.
The Jury, atter a few minutes consideration, found
f 4 the plaintiff foe thefull amount of his claim.
COURT OF COMMON 'PLEAS, DEC. 3. •
• DARBY V. SANDIER.
This was an action by the plaintiff, who was a shop.
-woman to tters defendant, in the Burlington Aieade, to
- recover damages for imprisonment in swatch house on
a charge of robbery.. It appeared that the plaintiff had
been taken before a Magistrate and discharged ; but the
evidence brought forward this morning by the defendant
to prove that a rubbery had been committed (though
not by the plaintiff) was such, that the Counsel for the
plaintiff sibmitted to a nonsuit.
MEDIA IRRSON V. LADY GRE,LRY.
This was an action brought against Ludy Gresley to
recover 721: thramotrat of 'the ttlaimiff Claim' against
her for variouiarticles of gfoCery supplied. The Case
was diciactly proved, and as the defendant's Counsel
nothing to say in the cost 'except to que-tion the
4"weracity of the plaintiff's witnessti, a verdiCt Was ie•
turned for the full amount of the claim.

NOSH t 4. LADY G k RAL EY.
This was an action bought against the same defenl
dant by her washertiosnan, to recover the arnOunt of
'her bill for ten months wa.thing. It was proved by one
of the defendant's servants that washing to the amount
of between La and 3W. had been done by the plaintiff
fin the defendant, but as the Counsel (or th• tatter did
not pr,iduce a book in Wfiich the precise amouht of the
• claim w as entered, ant which was in the hands of Lady
(ire ley, the exact amount of the plaintiff's rightful
claim could cot be aecertaincd:
The defendant's Canoed blade a few observations by

way of defence, but did not pretend to lessen the amount'
of the claims
The LORD Cntar Justice, in leaving the case to the
Jury, observed, that he should never cease to think that
persons in the rank of life in which the defendant moved
at all times disgraced themselves in appearing by
Counsel to defend such actions as these, unless they
were able to make out a much better detente than the
defendant had done in the two cases which had just,
occupied the attention of the Court. It.had been :trued
by one of the witnesses that theism charges for the work
done most base amounted to. between 201. and SOL and
he should have recommended the Jury in this, as in al-
most every other case, to give their verdict for the
smaller sum only. In this case, however, he should not
give that recommendation, because the defendant had
'the means of reducing the amount of the claim, if it
were unjust, by producing the book in which the s► hole
account was entered. The .Jury would the, cline live,
such a•sum between the two amounts mentioned as they
should think fair and proper.
The Jury, after having consulted fot a short time, re:
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 281, 10s. •

LONDON SESSIONS, Dn. S.

.

These Sessions sere held before the Right Hon. the
LORD MAYOR, RECORDER, Aldermen SirJAilltS SHAW,
Sir CLAUptt3 HUNTER, and WAITHWAN.
Israel Isaacs, a dealer in old clothes, was indicted for
assaulting and obstructing James Roberts and Henry
Lovell, two constables belonging to the City, in the dis-
charge of their duty.
The COMMON SERGEANT stated that this was a pro-1
secution instituter' by the Corporation. There had lately
been a sort of rag-fair established in Cutler street,
which the Common Council of the Ward determined
to put a stop to, and notice was given to the defendant
and all his tribe, that if they persisted they would be
prosecuted. Handbills were also posted in the neigh.
bourhood; but all these notices proved of no avail, and
the City officers received orders to take any one offend-
ing into custody. On the 30 hof November the com-
plainants went to Cutler-street, s here they found a
great number of Jews assemblei, and the defend ant in
the act of selling an old pair of breeches. They told him
be was acting in disobedience to the orders of the City,
and they must take him into custody ; upon which he
commenced his abuse, and finished by striking and
kicking them in a most violent matrer, in which he
was encouraged by at least 100 of his own fraternity.
A dreadful scuffle ensued, but at last the defendant was
taken into custody.
R beets and Lovell, the officers, proved the above
facts. They said, that Cutler street was now becoming
a formidable rival to Rosemary lane; it was a complete
nuisance to the neighbourhood.
The prisoner said he was very sorry for what he had
done, and begged pardon for the offence, but at the same
time be was nct aware that he was breaking the law.
The Jury found Lim Guilty.
The RECORDER, on passing sentence, dwelt on the
determination of the City to put down the abominable
nuisance. The sentence of the Court was, that the pri
sync be confined in the Giltspur street Compter for,
two months, and kept to hard labour.
take Freeman was indicted for assaulting William
Smith, Esq. of Dowgatehill, on the 29th of April.
Mr. ADOLPHUS said, this was a mr.st wanton assault.
The defendant was .a practising attorney, and he be-
lieved, in general, a well-conducted young man but
on this occasion he had given way to a violent fit of
pasjon, and broken the law. The prosecutor was passing
'down Queen-street, Cheapside, with his set vans, in a
chaise, when they were obstructed by a waggon. Just
at this time the defendant came up ow hosseback, and
tried to pass them, when the prosedsiter sold bim it was
impossible ; upon which he flew infts a Violent passion,
and after abusing him with a volley of oaths, began
beating him with an ash stick over his head. Upon
the prosecutor demanding his name, he was only an-
swered by further acts of abuse. Not knowing the
address of the defendant was the cause of the delay
taking place since the assault was committed.
Mr. Smith and his servant proved the assault.
Mr. PHILLIPS addressed the Jut, for the defendant.
He said it was the impatience of the prosecutor to pass
the waggon that gave r ise to this assault if assault it could
be called. The defendant was a most re-pectable man ;
but Mr. Smith striking his horse irritated -trim, and,
perhaps, be bad acted not exactly correct, although no
one could charge him with committing a wanton or
violent assault; it was not such persons as the young
Gentleman who now stood before them that caused the
obstructions so much complained' of in the streets of
London. He trusted the Jury' would acquit him.
The Jury consulted for some time, and then found
the defendant Guilty.
The ltscoanza told the defendant he had acted in a
Most unkistifiable manner, but as it might be under feel-
ings of irritation, the sentence of the Court was, that he_
pay to the King a fine of 201.
The defendant immediately drew a cheque for the
amount, and left the Court.