The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-16 00:00:00

taworT —TVL Leap Cainaitaa, La. WA IDEGIATI, Las Loin

Orman,
STODDART V. ORVIT.—itnT4WENTART WRITINGS.—
QtritlON OF IMPLIED RI.VOI ATION or PRIOR lIT SUB
RE LEST WRITIN44.
Th:s appeal azsinst interlocutors of the Court of Session
opened on the 25th of March (see Ewes; of the 26th),
stud further argued on the Bth and nth of May, was now
lurch .r heard, bat not being concluded at the rising of their
at half-past 1 o'clock, was farther adjourned.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH—YrATEItDAT.
8210118 LAW C•111/1.51.1. WM • (tialelli Jean.
OnLit•ieu r. Mietsr.r.
This sane an action for assault and false imprisonment in
taking the plaintiff to a ponee °Mee on a charge of felony,
without any reasonable cause. The defendant pleaded not
guilty only.
It appeared, by the statement of the ease by the learned
merjeant, that the defendant wa. the executor of a person
of the name of Stanwood, who, in the distribution of his
proporte, left his furniture to a child he hied had by his
bouseke:eper. The executor had nob red the sale of this
furniture for the pure-e of investing the proceeds, but the
smother was very unwilling that it is"e old be sold, and in-
duceil the plaintiff, with hit brother, to mist in removing
it. The goods were accordingly r. nosed in bread daylight,
mid the etecuter finding out that the plaintiff had been
coneenied in the removal, and he, when asked, denying
haling done so, gave him into charge for stealing an iron
oaf *hi, h was among the furniture. The magistrate di,-
Wiseed the charge, upon the housekeeper saying that she
bad sie• it authority to remove it.
Asa 1110111114 was railed, and said she had been haute-
keeper to Mr. Stallwonil. He had lift her some houses.
and had left the furniture to her little boy. The defendant
was executer, and called on her, and said if she could not
pay fir the furniture, which be put at 181., he should sell
it. f.he said there was 101. dee to her for wages, and the
would set that off against the furniture and take it. Ile
re tu-e I that, and she applied to Mr. Orchard and his bro-
th. rto remove it. She was examined at the police court,
and said she had requested them to remove it, and the ma-
gistrate dismissed the sac.
On ersais,examinati .... by Sir F. Tin-tiger, she said she
hoe's that Itowsiter wax put into taasession of the furniture
by Mr. Ellis, who we, i mployed to sell it. He had not
beets them the day the furniture was taken away. When
be twee and found the mils gone, •10, told him they had
bees taken away, but she did not say they were taken to
Dlr. Ellis's. fteswiter went away, and came hack and said
May were not at Mr. Ellis'., and lagged her to tell him
lib, re they were. Mousey afterwards came with his solici-
tor, and she said .he knew nothing about the goads.
The charm 'sheet, signed by the defendant, war put in,
sod it wet poised that the plaintiff hail paid 71. Ins. as the
expense. et the premeding before the magistrate.
Sir I'. The ma. r addressed the jury for the defendant, and
admitted that there must he a venial against him, as he
had not pleasled any justitgation ; but lie contended that
the trouble was brought upon the plaintiff entirely by his
own set, which was admitted to be quite unjuatifiable, and
tit it the s:ualleat amount of mamas," would meet the justice
of 111. C.V., Ile then called
j.as,,, Ellis, who stated that he was an auetioneer, and
bad pot tto.,itt.r into to...ernion. When he heard that the
gsrals were gone he went to the- house in ralthorp-stn id,
and there new Ann ltuberts, who said she knew nothing
of the remota of them. Ile then went te the police otter,
mai found the policeman who had been on duty in the
Unit so the to ' ng. and solitaini,' from him the same on
dr• tan in which the goods had 111 en removed.
Criss-etanii ... 41 --My chief clerk went with me to the
gri:im "Mee. I did not apply for a summons. I cannot
an-s. rw he the, or not I was Wit' it .1.1 nit amount to
• felony ; but I was told 1 must be eery cautious how
I artist.
Kuniter was then called, who said be was in possession.
Ile hail stela in the house. and went out about 5 to get
thawed and have his breakfast; when he came hark the
EL.
+i were lame ; saki el where win they gone, mid Ann
n said Mr. Ellis's men had is triad them away. lie
seat to Mr. Ellin's w.irehou.e, found they were not
there, and came hack. Ann 1 lionises said all she knew
was that two men bail, them away.
tVilliarn 1 ott pones' that he was a replier constable, and
on did. in Caltliorp-street on the 2nd April. About half-
peat 7 hr saw .rose gnarls twins et moved, and took the name
of to- .ar, which he afterwards left at the police station.
Ile saw Oa persan who had been engem.' is reinovinir
tie ite the nest slay at the polite elfin, l'hey were the
Orehards
%V Wenn Watson proved that lie was a ',email. and hail
seinm il the reds. Ile did not know the person from
whims he received them. lie ultinuiti.ly took them to a
law. in Brink-atm-et. He maw the ()Milani% there.
Mrs Mantel proved that a person she did not know came
to her house almost 10 o'clock on the ?nil April. and took
lolgines in the name of Ili, hank, or 'tub:ail...on. Ile said
he hail got a situation in London. and that his goods were
▪ the railway station. They were afterweriL brought
ths re.
John .1n her, police constable, proved that the defendant
apple it to hint to waist in tracing the gnosis. Ile went to
th,. lout• in l'althorpoitrect ; saw Ann Thomas and the
(inherits then. Asked her whether she knew who had
removed the gods. She said she did nut. Ile then asked
the plaintiff a liether he knew, and he said he did not.
['bias soil he 14.41.114.11 where they had been taken to, and he
after% arils went buck to taltloirp-st met. 'I he defendant
was tin vi there, unit he asked him what he intended to do ;
and hi said be shoal.' give them lilt. custody. All was
done that einikl be dine to have the ease heard that day, I
but they W.F.• t late. There was au iron sale among the
thing. carried away.
f•rias.e•samine-el-- The safe was locked.
Ansi II prole,' that he hail mode an inventory of the
real-, and saw them afterwards at the station. 'flare were
lasik• and papers annum them.
Mi. S..rjeinit Wilkins addreared the jury in reply.
Lead Campbell summed no the evidence, and rib' the
jury that it was purely a question of damaaes, and that he
thought a ;cry moderate: sum would satidy the justice of
the c i.e.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damage. las.
Lord Campbell refused to certify fur nisi.

COURT OF COMMON YLEAS.-Yv.+T►RDAT.

fiTlllll4.l AT 3in. 1.,,. AT

%%sr wig

JVSTICII

-.-•.
The c.iurt wr. (*copied the whole of the day in trying
the ease of '• r. Eindnuel," which was an action
to rmos,, compen‘ati 111 l in damages for an illegal thorn,..
The detail. of the taw, however were of no interest except
VI the parties •..t.nrol. 'The jury ultimately found a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 961. IN., 461. 19s being
the value of e goods improperly seized, and the other 50/.
being Riven an ronipensation fur the pidintifs house having
been Illegally entered.