Palace Court.
- Tlle tollowiuigacuon which-nut notthrnfatt tiir alatw-hour OD' Ftidtay evening, exciteA 'eiy coralderisble- intetcatz- . - mor,', c03t'dl V; VltTI3. This was an action brought by MqIes Cohen, a svell-knwn rmock auctioneer, against the defendant 'White, .wt is a broker, -to re- cover a compecsatdent In damtages (laicl at iDI5) for a. ttespass in en, teringR the plaintiff's house, ant fseizing and carryingaway bihgdodsq. and also to recover the su ns of 171. 1 04., the value of ccrtain goods iil legally distrained non ly the defendant. Air, ELRtE stted -thecase- to the iury. ft appeared that in Fe- bruiary la*t a toan rsamed Al,ckenzie, who is a mock auctioneer, went to ir. Hlatton, of Thamnes-street, the proprietor of a liouse si- tuate in Tooley.street, in thr Borough, and raid that he shouild be glad to take the honse for the ta!e of glass and earthenwore goods. ,; Hatton said, if Mackenzie would pay him 61., the amount of rent vITc 6'$o .r due at the Michaelmas Qearter Day, Ike would let hirn the house. CuIehr }"e plaintiff. adyanced M Alackergzie the M., and he took it to Alr. Tiattg.i Aiacken2te took pos:cs- sion on the 6tb of February, and Cohell 4`ltcyed the house at the samtimne, and talked to Mackenzie about some f1nsrovements he shoUBid have made on the premises, evidently showing that he had an Interest in the business. Soon after theg obtaifred posses- sion, the prenises were opened as a mock auctiolroomns, and some- timesCohen sold, and sometimes Mlackenzie. This continued till the 23d of June, when a quarter's rent lent due on the next day to llr. tlatton. One of Ar. Hattor's feraWale sersar,t5 was accidentally loassing the premiseR on tie 24th of June, and San' 5l1ackenzie's servants carrying of' the property. and she gave information to her master. Heemp]ovetl the defendant and other persons to twatch where they w-ere tsken to, and followed them to Cohen;'s aucton- roomn, in Newingeton l'auseway. The defendaint White entered the rooms and asked for Mr. Mackenzie, and was told he was not there; 'but one of MAr. Hattonrs servants came into the roomn at the momentt, and pointed out iMackenzie, wh1om she recognized anmongst the per.7ns present. tr. White instantly distraimed apon the goods, which had been removed fr-om Tooley-street, for the amount of the uarmer's re'Cnt (1.31. lSs.) due to Mlr. iHatton. Cohen said the goods distraied upon were his property, and not .Mackenzie's, aead per- sisted that they had not been removed from Tooley-street ; and the defendant. White replied, that he did not care, he should dis- train, because he had been indem'nified by M',r. Ratton. After the goods were distrained, the defenaant returoed some parc of the goods to the plaintiff, which he could not prove had been Ye- moved from the premises. in Tooley-street. On the part of the plaintift, a man named Ant was called, who-awre. positiyely that none of the goods contained in the inventory ta7ten at the itne the distress was levied in the ildaintiff's house by the ae7ndaht, were ever removed from Tooley-streat, but they *exe aliz d&hptaintiff's property. He also swore thatlie removed all the goods romn 'Tooley- street himself. In cross-examination, he said, that Cohen and Mlackenzie had been concerned together, though not aapaYtne.., for some time; and that Cohen had kept inock-auction.?ooms Its the Strand, Ludgai-.hill, Gommercial-oad, Newingtws-canseway, Tooley-street, &c., and he would not swear that the names-of Cohen or Alackenzie were over the doors at these different auction-rooms. He was not, he said, a " puffer" or " barker," though he would not swear that he had not repeatedly " sweetened" or bought goods in the shops at the time of sale. Mr. Stanley Goddard was called to support the plaintiff's case. He deposed to the goods beirg in the possesion of the plaintiff when they were leviedl upon. In cross-examination lie admitted that Cohen and Iliackenele had acted as if they had each had as interest in the different auction rooms in Tooley-street and Newington-causeway. Witmeas had never sold by auction himself, but lie had beeu In the roAtrum; that, however, was when the rooms were enipty, for the purpose of re- nearsiny, as lbe aspired to the honour of becomlng an auctioneer him- self, as sooII as lie had perfected himself. Air. T Esia.ER, for the lefendant, addressed the jury at great length, and said, that a inore traudulent juggle than the one that lie should develope tottiejjary, on the part of Cohen and Aackenzie, hiad never been exposed in a court of iUstice. Mlr. Cohen had beein proprietor of many muock auction rooms, and MAfc- kenzie was his mnan of straw. The premises eakeii of MIr. Uatton by Mackenzie wtere used by Cohen and Mackenzie, and clearly proved their united Interest in the buisness carried on there. He (Mlr. Thesiger) should prove that the wItness Ant had committed the most abominable perjury; he had sworn that he removed aU the goods from Tooley-sitreet, and that none of those in the inventory were removed by him. In opposition to this testimony he should call a person, who was in the employ of Co- hen, who would swear that lie and another youth removed the same identical goods which the defendant distrained upon, from 'rooley- street to Newington-causeway,; and that after they were distracined upon, Mackenzie said to Cohen, "I must make out invoices of these goods, as solh by me to you, and you nust say you bouglht them of me." He sbould also prove by the evidence of a young woman. named Dowling, who was in the employ of Mr. Hatton, that she saw part of these goods removed from Tooley-street, by two boys, and that Ant was not the peron who removed them. With thi evidence proving that the goods seized were Mackenzie's, and frau- dulentry rernoved, to avoid the payment of NMr. Hiatton'n rent, he sheuld call upon the jury for a verdict on belialf of his client. A youth, niamed truce, deposed that he was in Cohen's employ on June 23d anti 24th, and tfiat lie removed from Tooley-street, with the assistance of another youth, the goods seized upon st New. ington.causeway by the defendant. Other wtiUsesiea were called for the defence, showing that the plaintiffand Mackenzie were both parties to the remoyal of the goods from Toley-stteet, and that Mackenzie exercised a control over tthem after ihed arrival at Newington-causeway; and were, there- fore, in his possession at the time of their seizure. AlT. EUnLs replied, and Mr. READER, the Judge, sunmmed up, Ind said, that if thie jury were ot opinion that this transaction was a fraudulent juggle between the plaintiff Cohen and ilackenzie, as had been stated by Mr. Thesiger in his addres!i to them., they would give the defendant a verdict, If they, however, were of opinion that the goods were the prOperty',of Cohen, and in lilt possession at the time of seizure, lie was entitled to a verdict for the value of the goods distrained upon. As to his claim for damages, tinder all the circumstances, he thought a farthing would be ample for the injury hisreputation had sustained. Tfle Jury consulted tor a few minutes, and retuened a verdict for the defendlant.Suanday paper. PALA,Cp, co~ti Zr. .MOCC _AUCTfprlf-'aRAVDULET REMOVAt Or GOODg, &c.