The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1868-04-21 00:00:00

TUB ATTORNEY% WATCH LOST AT THE

Vi&FORI,c HOTEL
In the Court of Queen's Bench. on Saturday last,
Wore the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Lush and
Hamm, an application in tbe case of Moores. Dunn was
beard.

Mr. H. T. ca., Q.C., said this was an action tried
at Dorekester Assize; before Lord Chief Justice Boyd',
for the loos of a watch and other articles alleged to
have been stolen in defendant's inn, while plaintiff
was an inmate there, when the jury returned a verdict
for the defendant, He now moved for • rule to set
aside the verdict on the ground that it wa• against the
evidence, and on affidavits showing misconduct on the
7:Cof the jury, The plaintiff is a practising attorney at
ivil, and in August last, he and a friend • surgeon
of the same town, wen to Weymouth racw,
and stopped at the defendant's hotel, the Victoria.
They returned to the hotel about 11.30 p.m. aril
remained in the bar, smoking and chinking with others
till three o'clock in the morning, when they retired to
their beds in • double-bedded room. They fastened the
door (?) but did not lock it. Plaintiff put his
waistcoat, containing his watch, etc., and gold
under the bead of his bed, bet his friend placed
bin in his waisteost and left it on the dressing tsble.
In the morning they noticed the door was open and on
looking for their valuables they found they had been
stolen. They gave an alarm, and after considerable
delay (?) the landlord came, but he declined to have
the bowie searched. A month or two afterwards the
plaintiff's waistcoat was found In the chimney
of • sitting-room in the hoteL The chambermaid
was accused, her boxes were ~shed, and
she was sent away, but the circumstances of
the finding, etc, vrere not communicated to the
plintiff. For the defence it wee urged that the property
was lost at a gambling "hell." in Weymouth, which
the plaintiff and his friend visited, but it was shown
that they bad the property with them after they re-
turned to the hotel. Secondly„ it was urged that the
lose was occasioned by the negligence of the plaintiff in
not locking his door. The jury, the learned counsel
suggested, partly through prejudice and partly through
misunderstandiag amongst themselves, gave a verdict
for the defendant. It was a common jury composed of
tradesmen, some of whom it wan said came from Wey-
mouth, and were friends or neighbours of the defendant.
Moreover, there were affidavits of • juror and
independent bystanders, that the jury, during an
adjournment, went to the inn where the defendant
and his witnesses were staying, acid took
refreshments there in their company, and that some
of them were observed laughing and nodding during the
trial at the defendant. Further than this, the plaintiff
it was said woman attorney, and there was the usual
prejudices (9 against him. There was an affidavit by a
juror that he thought from the evidence, and from
the charge of the Lord Coief Jodie*, that
the plaint•ff ought to have a v g hit, and that
others were of that opinion, but that the foreman did
sot eve them an opportunity of expressing their view,
and that they did not insist upon it is they were
anxious to got away as soon as possible.
The Court intimated that there was a rule of practice
which precluded them from receiving affidavits of jury-
men as to what pamed in the jury box, with the view
to impeach their verdict, as, if such affidavita were
admitted, no verdict would be safe.
_ .

Cole then withdrew that affidavit, and relied
upon the others—thou of independent witness.; after
hearing which
The Court said they would consult Chief Jnstice
Borill before deciding whether the rule should be
granted.