The Express.
London, England, 1864-04-01 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, AIRIL 1, 1864.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT. —limottros, basal 3L
(Before Chid Justin Brio and • Common July.)

oguanwo n. RIMS.

This was an action for false imprimonmeat.
Mr. G. Denman, Q.C., and Mr. C. Pollock, were for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., and Mr.
Lazton for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action was a veterinary surgeon
employed by the London Genies! Omnibus Company, and
the defendant keeps a shop for the sale of miftiellaneous
property at Walworth. The action arose under these dr.
cumatances It appeared that the plaintiff saw some
Locate exposed for sale in the defendant's shop, and he
went in and inquired the price. A owning of lancets of
different descriptions, some for bleeding horses, and others
fur human beings, were shown to him, and he at length agreed
to give three shillings for a large lancet and two smaller once,
but he wanted the defendant, who served him, to give him
• case for the lappets into the bargain. The defendant
told him be bad not got • case that would bo:d three
lancets, but the plaintiff pointed out one that was
on a shelf behind the counter, and wished to have it,
and the defendant said it would not hold the three lancets,
but he might have it if be pleased. The defendant then, it
appeared, turned round to get the ease, and when he was
about to hand it to the plaintiff he missed one of the
lancets, and requested the plaintiff to see whether it had
fallen down on his side of the counter. The plaintiff de-
clined to do this, and • rather angry altercation took place
between the parties, and the result was that the defendant,
being unable to bad the lancet, gave the plaintiff into cus-
tody upon the charge of stealing it, and he was taken before
• magistrate upon that charge, but after the matter had
been fully investigated it was dismissed, and the present
action was then brought against the defendant, It appeared
that the missing lancet had never been discovered, but the
plaintiff swore positively that there was sot the erightest
foundation for the charge that was made against him of
stealing it, and it was suggested that the defendant must
heel, been mistaken in supposing that it was on the counter at
the time he turned round to get theme. The defence to the
' action was that the defendant was perfectly justified, under
the circumstances, in suspecting the plaintiff of having
stolen the lancet, and according to his evidence he des-
' timely saw it lying upon the glass coo in frost of the
plaintiff at the moment he turned round to get the case,
and be said he missed it instantly, and no person but the
plaintiff could have taken it, and it appeared that when
he asked the plaintiff to look for the lancet, instead of
doing so he began to abase him and threatened to strike
him. With regard to the lancet not having been (mind, it
was smelted that, supposing the plaintiff to have takes it,
he had ample opportunity for getting rid of the lanes* on
his way to the police-station.
The jury, after • short consultation, returned • verdict
for the plaintiff—damages N., and the learned judge refused
to certify, the effect of which will be that each party will
have to pay his own costs.
The remainder of the day wu occupied in trying • special
jury cause, De Pass r. the Grand Surrey Docks Company,
in which the question involved was whether the defendants
were liable for the consequences of • collision that took
place in their docks between two vessels called the Trow-
bridge and the Mangertoe.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Si, G. Moorman were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Ind Mr. Raymond for the
defendants.

The details of the cue were entirely uninteresting to the
public.
It ia expected that both courts will be occupied to-day
(Friday) in trying civil cause, and that the whole of the
common jury eases remaining for trial will be sent into the
Crown Court. before the Lord Chief Baron. A good many
of the special jury canna have been withdrawn or settled.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—NoRwicIi, MARCH 31.
(Wen the Lord Chief Justice end a Special Jon.)

POLL= V. AMON AND OTHIRS.-THZ NUNDIOAD POACH-
ING CASE.

Mr. O'Malley. Q.C.. and Mr. Pbear appeared foe the
plaintiff ; Mr. Kum, Q.C., Mr. Bulwer, and Mr. Kirkby,
for the defendants.
This case, which was an action against three of the
trate* of Norfolk, was proceeding when our parcel left
yesterday.
Philip Fuller. the plaintiff, was cross-examined by Mr.
Keane, q.c.-1 not asked where I bought the game,
and I did not say. I did not call the persons I bought it of
as witnesses. Mr. Walpole's uncle was present when I was
before the magistrates on the lot of July. lie did not apply
for a postponement—they let me go without entering into
recognisance*. When I was before the magistrates in
August Mr. Baring said he wished it pot off then, as he
had applied for counsel's opinion to know what he should
do in the cue. On the last occasion that I was before the
magistrates Mr. Baring said they had tried to get the
penalty let down, but they found they could not do it.
They gave me a month to psy the tins, and said I most pay
the costa down. I said I had not got the money, but I did
not ask for time.

By the judge—l don't recollect whether I told my at-
torney where I bought the game.
. . . .

The reports of flit'. procealop before the magistrates in
the Bury Post were putth reed.

Mrs. By.—My husised is shepherd to Mr. Roper. I was
anbtsenced, and have six, had notice to leave cur house
within a week.

Mr. Meow submitted that th►t was an improper question.
His lordship—l cannot believe. Mr. Phear, that a geode-
man of your experience does not know that that is an im-
proper question, and could only be asked for the purpose of
prejudice.
Mr. O'Malley. Q.C.—lt has been made a point in this
case that the plaintiff did sot call these witnesses when be-
fore the magistrates, and this evidence is introduced to
show why he did not. After your lordship's remarks I feel
bound to say that I am entirely responsible for the ques-
tion asked by my learned friend, and for the memo I h►ve
stated. The witness went on to say that she sold the pri-
soner the rabbits.

Mrs. Mathew—My bust:red is bailiff to Mr. Roper. I
remember the plaintiff coming to my house just before be
was taken before the magistrates. I had a bare sod a
partridge in my house that d..v. I parted with them to
Fuller. He gave me some herrings, some yeast, and a
shilling. I gave him the partridge.
This was the pLintiff's case.
Mr. Keane submitted that there was ao case to go to the
jury, as the conviction was not quashed.
Mr. O'Malley called his lordship's attention to the Justice
of the Peace Act, and submitted that it was only necessary
that the conviction should be quashed in cases not within
the jurisdiction of the magistrates.
His lordship stated that he would consult Mr. Justice
Crompton, and give his decision this morning.
This morning the learned Chief Justice stated that be did
not feel juatified in stopping the case, bat he would reser►e
the point.
. . . .

Keane thou submitted that co action would lie in
respect of the refusal of the magistrates to state a ease.
Mr. O'Malley said that be did cot rely oc that as a
substactire eattas of acti.u, but it wu evidence of malice.

His Lordship—The great question will be whether there
is malice.

Mr. Keane not calling witnesses,
Mr. O'Malley addressed the jury for the plaintiff, con-
tending that the facie clearly showed malice, as the magis-
trates had made it one of the grounds of the conviction
that the plaintiff had been convicted before.

Mr. Sian then addressed the jury for the defendants.
He (the learned counsel) thought that he should satisfy the
jury that the decision of the magistrates if wrong only re-
sulted from the erroneous judgment of the magistrates,
and not from any desire on their part that justice should
be administered partially. He did not presume to
criticise what was done in the Court of Queen's Bench, bat
what was dose there was calculated to embarrass the magis-
trates. Coder an act confessedly obscure, and of which it
has been held that the mere finding of game was presump-
tive evidence of guilt., there could not. under the facts of
this cam, be malice. What other conclusion could the
magistrates come to than that the plaintiff came by the
game improwly • could the jury then say that they had
personal or Malice The plaintiff gave no account of
the game. Game is toned to the cart a partiidge with its
legs broken, as if by a trap or snare ; a bare, which the
plaintiff did not mention to the policeman ; the cart against
a plantation ; and all the defence was that the man had a
wooden leg. It reminded him (the learned mussel) of a
story told in one of Mr. Dickens's novels. A coachman
was told that the law required him to do something
which it was impossible for the driver of a coach to do,
and the reply he made, not very respectful perhaps, wee
that if the law required this •• the law was a bass, and never
' drove a coach" ; and he (the learned counsel) said, that if
the law was each that a man with a wooden leg could not
be convicted of poaching, •• the law was a ham, and bad
never poached." (Great laughter.) Theo they say it was
malicious, refusing to stage a cam ; but what did the ma-
gistrates do' They say that is not the proper course, you
should appeal, and thee you would have both facts and law
gone into. The plaintiff might have taken up a case after
that. The delay after the case was decided was only
caused by the magistrates taking the opinion of coun-
sel. as to whether they could let the plaintiff off
altogether. Something had been said about Mr. Sut-
ton saying that be would Dot stultify bin:molt by
altering the decision the magistrates had come to.
It had been said, why did not the magistrates come and
face the jury'—why rest their case on the facia as
stated by the plaintiff himself'—and they my that on those
facts no malice is shown. They could not alter the facts if
they had come and given evidence.
His Lordship then summed up to the jury. He cam-
' mewed by stating that it was for him to decide whether
there was reasonable and probable muse for the conviction,
and in his opinion there was not ; but that would not reader;
the defendants liable, unless the jai y were of opinion that
there was malice. Ender this act of parliament it was not
necessary that the man should be won upon land. That
conclusion might be come to inferentially ; but is his opinion
the evidence did not justify that inference. If this man
had been found at 5 o'clock in the manual:. or with guns
and sets, or even in company with a pawn who was proved
to be is pursuit of game, the case would have been different ;
bat the inference was, what the evidence to-day has am-
danCy proved, viz., that be was going about the country
collecting game that other people had taken ; and that
would not justify the conviction. But it is not because
magistrates make an error in judgment that they are to be
responsible. Then came the question, was then malice
He (the learned judge) would hare con nothing io themes
to indicate audios had it not bees for the unfortunate es-
premien of Mr. Hades, to the *Mot that threy salstred