MARFLEET Including variants e.g. MERFLET(T); MARFLETE; MARFLIT(T); MARFLIGHT, etc. Family History


Extract from:
The Essex Standard, West Suffolk Gazette, and Eastern Counties' Advertiser
Friday, July 20th 1877





JOSEPH MARFLEET v. SAMUEL BOND

This was an action for £500 damages for wrongfully entering a house and seizing furniture, and for the value of the furniture.
Mr. E. CLARKE appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. WILLIS, Q.C. and Mr. REGINALD BROWN (instructed by Mr. A.M. WHITE, Colchester), for the defendant.
The case, as laid before the Court by the plaintiff's Counsel, was that during a portion of last year he was living at Colchester, and in August he hired a cottage at Boxted, a few miles off, and went to reside there. His wife subsequently purchased of the defendant, a furniture dealer, of North Hill, Colchester, a quantity of furniture (£30 worth), which was sent over to the cottage on the 4th December. A few days afterwards about £40 worth more furniture was ordered, and as it was not sent, plaintiff and his wife called upon the defendant, who made the excuse that he had been ill, and promised to send them by the 23rd. They were not sent, however, but the defendant, who had not been paid for the goods (and who alleged he had been misled by Mrs. MARFLEET saying she had an expectancy from a Chancery suit), went to the cottage during the plaintiff's absence, and removed the furniture he had sent, while other parties did the same, and the house was completely stripped.
Plaintiff was called, and stated that he hired the cottage himself, and that the then outgoing tenant was a person named King. His wife made the purchases at defendant's, and the 18th December was the first time he saw him, when they called about the second lot of furniture not having been sent. Defendant asked for payment, but witness and his wife told him their business was not settled, but as soon as it was they would pay. Defendant seemed satisfied, and promised to send the other furniture by the 23rd December, but it was not sent. Witness and his wife went to London about this time to spend Christmas. He left the cottage at Boxted safely locked, buf after he had been in London some time, he returned, on the 17th February, in consequence of what he heard from a neighbour, and found that the cottage had been broken into and stripped of everything excepting an Arabian bedstead. The value of the articles which were not sent from defendant's but which were taken, was about £40.
The plaintiff was cross-examined by Mr. WILLIS with a view to show that when the goods were ordered, he had not a sixpence in the world, and that the defendant was induced to part with his goods on the misrepresentation that Mrs. Marfleet had money coming to her from a Chancery suit, and that her lawyer (Mr. Chrismas) would pay. In answer to the learned Counsel's questions, plaintiff admitted that he had lived at the Castle Inn, Colchester, from May till July, and had not paid the landlady (Mrs. Keymer) for their board and lodging, while he also admitted having borrowed money from the ostler, which he had not repaid. He took no furniture with him to Boxted, Mrs Keymer having detained it. He did not borrow any wearing apparel from Mr. R. Kemp, a bootmaker, of Colchester, but he bought a few things of him, for which he had not yet paid, because he had a contra account for labour, in collecting Kemp's debts, for which he was allowed 5 per cent. He collected, however, only a few pounds. (Laughter.) When he called on the defendant on the 18th December, the latter read a letter which he had received from Mr. Chrismas (to whom he had been referred) stating that he was acting for Mrs. Marfleet in a Chancery suit, but that he did not think there would be much money coming to her, and that he had already advanced her more than would cover it.
In reply to His LORDSHIP, plaintiff said he had some money now, he had been canvassing for an Insurance Society at five per cent. and had insured a great many children's lives; he got a shilling for each, and one week he received £5.
Mrs. Marfleet gave evidence as to the ordering of the furniture. In cross-examination, she denied she told defendant she was related to Lord Nelson, but to a Mr. J.H. Nelson, under whose will she was expecting some money. She did not say that the testator had left her £600. She told defendant that she expected something from a Chancery suit. Her husband did not tell Mr. Bond that he might fetch the goods back if he did not receive the money in a few days.
Mr. WILLIS, for the defence, suggested that the plaintiff was a man of straw, that during his residence at Colchester he was trading on a supposed expectancy from the Court of Chancery, and contracting debts which he had not means of paying. He urged that the plaintiff was turned out of the Castle Inn for non-payment of his account, and that being almost destitute, Mr. Kemp took compassion on him, hired the cottage at Boxted, and put him in. Notwithstanding this, plaintiff or his wife went to the defendant, bought the goods without the means of paying, and, the learned Counsel suggested, without the intention of paying. In the course of some further remarks, Mr. Willis stated that Mrs. Marfleet, represented to defendant, when she ordered the goods, that she was related to Lord Nelson or a Mr. Nelson, and was entitled to £600 under his will. After the second lot of furniture was ordered, defendant wrote to Mr. Chrismas and received the letter already referred to, and on his then declining to send in the goods, plaintiff said he should have the money in a few days, but that if he didn't pay the goods would be all right at Boxted, and he (defendant) could go and take them. Defendant did not send them in, and after waiting until February, and hearing nothing from the plaintiff, went to Boxted, unlocked the door of the cottage, and took his goods away, Mr. Kemp (who also removed some goods) and Mr. Joslin, the landlord, being present. Mr. Willis contended that the defendant had the leave and license of the plaintiff to go and take the things as they were not paid for in a few days as arranged.
Mr. Bond, the defendant, said when Mrs. Marfleet ordered the first lot of goods she said her solicitor would pay for them in a week. Among the articles ordered on the second occasion was a thirty guinea piano, but he did not send the goods in. When plaintiff and his wife called on the 18th December, the former said if the things were not paid for in a few days he (defendant) could go and fetch them away. He went over and brought the things away on the 5th February. Took some keys and opened the door and took the things in the presence of Mr. Joslin and Mr. Kemp. The cottage had been broken into before, and things taken by other creditors.
In cross-examination, he said he only took away the goods belonging to himself; Kemp took some of his own goods away.
Mrs. Bond corroborated her husband as to the conversation with plaintiff on the 18th December
Mr. Robert Kemp deposed that having met defendant at the Castle Inn, after the latter was turned out from there, he went to him and asked his assistance. He took compassion on him and befriended him. He had him at his house for a time, and lent him some things, and afterwards hired the cottage at Boxted and put him in there. He hired the cottage of Joslin, who would not let it to plaintiff.
To his Lordship, I did not let the house to plaintiff, but merely let them go in there till they turned themselves round. There was no agreement for plaintiff to pay me £5 a year rent. Plaintiff agreed to pay me something for my trouble when he got his money, and I have since sent him in a bill for about £20. I sent the bill at his own request. On the 5th Feb., when the things were removed by us, I gave Joslin leave to let the house for me.
Mr. Joslin, the landlord, proved that Kemp was the tenant, and that the latter asked him on the 5th Feb. to let it for him.
His LORDSHIP supposed Mr. Willis would say that at most plaintiff was but a tenant at will, and that if it was a trespass, sixpence damages would be sufficient.
Mr. WILLIS said he should prefer a farthing. (Laughter.) He contended, however, that there was no trespass, defendant having had license from plaintiff, and that the verdict should be entirely in Bond's favour.
His LORDSHIP, after some legal discussion, suggested that the parties should consent to a draw, without costs on either side.
Mr. CLARKE, however, preferred to go to the Jury, and addressing them, contended there had been a substantial trespass, and that the plaintiff was entitled to fair damages.
His LORDSHIP in summing up, said although plaintiff's conduct in ordering the goods without any means of payment was not actually a fraud, he must not be surprised if p[eople spoke of it as being next door to it. It was monstrous, that without a farthing to pay with, he should go ordering goods, including such a luxury as a piano. The main questions he should leave to the Jury were - whether or not they considered Kemp hired the house and merely let htem go in, and whether defendant had the license of plaintiff to enter and take the goods away. If they were merely allowed to go in by Kemp, they would be tenants at will and could be removed at any moment, but supposing there was no license given to defendant the latter had no right to open the door, and plaintiff would be entitled to some damage. As to the smount of damage, his Lordship said as Mr. Kemp might have put an end to the tenancy at any moment, plaintiff merely lost the right of calling the cottage his home for five minutes, for which he thought sixpence damages would be quite sufficient. If, however, the Jury thought defendant had license, their verdict would be in his favour.
The Jury returned a verdict for defendant upon all the issues and certified for costs.

---

© Marfleet Family History 2000
	Newspaper Extract This page was last updated
This page contains links to other web-sites. If you experience problems with an onward link, please e-mail me with details so that the problem can be rectified. Thank you.

Family History Banner Exchange