The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-10 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

--
Tan Dein OF BRUNSWICK e. SLOMAN, BAKER, Towsi-
REND, MILES, AND BROWN,—FORCHILE ENTRY AND
BREAKING INTO A HOUSE NY A SHERIFF'S OFFICER.—
This was an action of trespass brought by the Duke of
Brunswick against Sloman, the sheriff's officer, and his as-
sistants, Baker, Miles, and Brown, and against en attorney
of the name of Townshend, for makings forcible entry into his
dwelling-house, Brunswick House, New-road, breaking
open the door, and remaining in possession from Saturday
evening until Monday. The defendants severed in their
pleas, and were represented by different counsel, but, in sub-
stance, they all pleaded a justification—viz., that they were
acting under the authority of a writ of " fieri facies ' from
the sheriff, and that they obtained peaceable entry through
an open door, and, on being ejected, regained possession by
breaking open the door. Mr. Serjeant Allen, Mr. Lush,
and Mr. Henniker appeared fur the plaintiff ; Mr. Serjeant
Bytes appeared for Sloman, Mr. Serjeant Wilkins for
Townshend and Miles, and Mr. E. James for Baker and
Brown.
The case was part heard on Tuesday, and was now re-
sumed. Although, owing to the number of witnesses called.
on both sides principally to speak to and contradict the same
facts so much time was consumed, the case rewind itself
into a comparatively narrow compass. The case, as it was
brought forward on behalf of the plaintiff, was as follows :
In the year IS4O an action was brought by tho defendant
Townshend against the Duke of Brunswick, en behalf of a
person of the name of Charlotte Munden, to recover the
arrears of annuity of 2001., (vented by the duke while reign-
ing sovereign of Brunswick. In that case there was a judg-
ment for the plaintiff ; but the cause was carried up to the
House of Lords by the defendant, who also tiled a bill in
equity on the subject matter. and it was intended to move
for an injunction to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding
further. A second action was brought for further arrears of
the annuity which had accrued, and ji.dement was signed as
for want of a plea, end cution issued, and a a rit of fieri
facies was in the hands of the sheriff. This being known to
the duke, he closed his house, and gave directions to his ser-
vants not to admit strangers. The house in question is
situated in a garden, surrounded with a wall, the principal
entrance is through a gate in Brunswick-place, and, in order
to reach the house-door, a space between the gate and the
house must be traversed. On 15th May, in last year, about
7 o'clock in the evening, the p,rter, who was in the hall of
the house, went to the garden gate on hearing the hell ring,
and, on inquiry, found that a person of the name of Gates,
an artist employed by the duke, wished to be admitted. The
porter inquired if it was all right, and, on remising an
answer in the affirmative from Gates, opened the garden ,
gate to admit him. So aeon as it was opened, Baker,
one of the defendants, with three others, who were on
watch, rushed in, knocked down Gates, and hastened
to the house-door, which it was alleged on the part of the
plaintiff he did not enter, but was dragged back by the
porter. A struggle ensued between the servants of the duke,
and the officers and the pollee were sent for. Townshend
got over the wall, and ordered the house-door to be broken
pre, which he and Biker did, using large stones for fhe j

purpose. although the duke's secretary from the wiadow re-
quested that it might not be done, statir.g that there was
enough in the garden to satisfy the execution, such as
horses, carriages, dec. Bix men having been placed in pot-
eession of the house, the duke's secretary offered the amount
of the levy, 2201. in gold, to Baker, under protest, but he
refused to take it on those terms, although he attempted to
a, lee the money, and did obtain part of it. The secretary
then went in search of Blonsan, and having after some
difficulty found him again, offered to pay the amount of the
levy, under protest, if he would withdraw the men from
possession that night. This Stillman refused to do, unless
he was paid 201. They accordingly remained until Monday,
when the money was paid, and the men withdrawn. This
was the case for the plaintiff, and was proved by Barfield,
a groom of the dukes, Bale, the porter, Gates the artist,
a,,d Oddy the secretary.
Mr. Serjeant Bytes, for Sloman, submitted that there
was no case against him. There was a valid execution, and
the warrant being directed to Baker as well as Sloman,
the subsequent receipt of the mom by Sloman did not
make binsa party to any thing which was done at the
house.
The Chief Justice, however, thought that the ease should
go to the jury, leave to move on the point being reserved.
Mr. Serjeat4 Bites then addressed the jury, contending
that the house door was open when Baker first entered, and
that whatever was subsequently done was justified by
the law.
Mr. James submitted that there was no case against
Brown. The action was for trespass, for breaking end
entering, and he took no part in the breaking. The objec-
tion being overruled, the learned counsel addressed the jury
for Baker and Brown, urging the same arguments ea der-

jeant Biles.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins addressed the jury for Townshend
and Miles, and also urged that the door was open when an
entry was made, and that the subsequent breaking open after
the expulsion of the officers was no more than their duty, in
which they were borne out by the law.—Witnesses were then
called for the defence as follows :—A person of the name of
Moxbay, a commercial traveUer, who was near the place in
question on the day when the levy was made, and who was
looking over the wall, stated that the house door
was open when Baker went in, and that be remained
there some minutes before he was ejected by the
porter.—ln cross-examination he said he wee a friend
a Baker's, and wu on hu sot only by accident.—
Thomas Thorp, a cabmen,t whop drove Miles to the benne,
also stated that he was looking over the wall from the box
of his cab, and that the door was open when Baker wont in.
In croa-examination he stated that he was &friend of Town-
shend,but that he was accidentally hired by Miles at Charing-
crow—John Francis, a policeman, stated that he went to
Brunswick-house on the evening in question, having been
desired to go there because some men bad got into the house.
He saw Baker, who showed him his warrant, and be de-
clined to take him into custody when told to do so, as he
was aware that he was a .heritfa officer doing his duty.
Baker told him that he had legally entered the house, but
had been ejected by the porter. The porter said be had
done so, and would do it fifty times it it were
necessary. Baker asked ail the servants and the
,e,retary. who was at the window, to erns the
house door, or he would br,nlc it open. He did break it
open, asskteil by another per. He (the witness) first
went with baker to all the outhouses end stables before they-
went into the house, but they were all closed and locked.
He did not hear the secretary say anything from the window
about there being property in the garden.—Three other
policemen gave similar evidence.
Mr. fieejeant Alien then replied. At the close of the
learned counsel's address the jury said that they hail made
up their minds with regard to the verdict, and therefore
they would not trouble his lordship to recapitulate the evi-
dence, but they should be glad to hear something from him
on the subject of damages.
The L Chief .1 ashes, however, went through on out-
line of the focts. ns stated in ivi.'er.ce on hints side., and
concluded by .aging, that the question was whethi r the
outer door of the house was open, and whether Baker got in
and was expelled. With regard to the 2201. which had been
paid, it appeared to have been paid under protest, with a
view to get the men out of possession of the house, and not
in satisfaction of the levy. If that was so, and there was a
verdict for the plaintiff, he was entitled to recover that sum
back again : for it wee part of the trespass if the plaintiff
was compelled to pay that sum to get the men out of his
house. With regard to other damages be could only say that
where an officer of the low, charged with the execution of
proem', wrongfully broke open a door, it was a serious tree-
pass, and one which wu not to be treated lightly.
The jury retired for a short time, and then returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff against all the defendants. They
assessed the damages separately—viz.. 2.201., the sum paid by
the plaintiff, and a Natter sum et 5001.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
ila Pana.—llefore Sr F 1•01:6i, C.B and a ereei..l Jury.
REMILL T. Lesst,—ICAILWAY LITIOATIOS.— Mr.
Knowles, Q.C., Mr. Bramwell, anclMr. Willis, Mere counsel
tor the plaintiff; the Attorney-General, Mr. Martin, Q.O ,
sod Mr. Cowling, for the defendant. This action was tried
before the Lord Chief Baron on the 24th of June, 1846,
during the after-sittings at Middlesex. It was brought by
the plaintiff, who is a well-known advertising agent, against
the defendant (a gentleman of large property), as one of the
provisional committee of the Central h.ent Railway Com-
pany, to recover the price of advertisements of that scheme
mitred by the plaintiff in various newspapers between the
13th of September and the 29th of November, 1815, and for
work and labour. It appeared that the defendant's name
was first published as a provisional committeeman early in
October of that year. He called, about the 26th of Septem-
ber, at the office of Messrs. Parkes, Smith, and Co., soli-
citors of the company, and made inquiries about the
line. lie expressed himself satisfied with the information
he had received, said he was desirous of becoming a member
of the provisional committee, and left a card describing him-
self as director of other railways. His name was accordingly
inserted as one of the committee, and he afterwards willed
at the company's offices in Mansion-house place to correct
the announcement as made in the prospectus. He frequently
visited the company's offices afterwards, seemed to take en
interest in the success of the undertaking, frequently talked
of its business, and was seen reading the advertisements in
which his name was published as a committeeman. On the
7th November he caused an advertisement to be inserted in
the Times, stating that he was provisional committeeman of
no other railway except the Central Kent and the Middle.
sex and Surrey Junction. In the month of December he
inquired about the expenses then incurred, and expressed
himself satisfied with the solicitors, to whose instrumentality
he imputed their being eci small in amount. There was no
allotment or managing committee, and no shares were ever
allotted. It appeared the defendant never attended a meet-
ing. On tha 15th October it was notified to him that the
provisional committee had rewired on allotting 150 shares
to every member, and he was requested to say how many he
would take. Oa the 16th of October he replied, stating that
he would take the full number to be allotted. On the Ist
of October, 1845, the company wan provisionally registered.
The orders were given to the plaintiff by Messrs. Parkes,
Smith, and Co.; but there was no evidence that the defendant
had ever directly authorised them to do so. The learned
judge, upon that evidence, left it to the jury to say whether
the defendant had authorised the solicitors to hold him out
to the world u personally responsible for the ordinary and
necessary expenses incurred in the formation of such a com-
pany. If so, whether his name was held out, the credit
given, and the work done, upon the faith of his being perso-
nally liable. The jury found their verdict for the plaintiff
for en much of the amount claimed as had accrued subse-
quent to September, 1845. A rule for a new trial was after-
wards obtained, on the ground that it was expedient to have
the question of the defendant's liability distinctly submitted
to another jury, and in accordance with the judgment of this
curt, in " Wyld v. Hopkins," lied other similar cases.
The facts proved on the former and on the present trials
were almost identical. It was urged on behalf of the de-
fendant at the former trial, that the action was really that of
Messrs. Parkes, Smith, and Co., and that theplaintiff suffered
his name to be used as a convenience ; but the plaintiff
produced yesterdays deed of indemnity, executed by Parkes,
Smith, and Co., on the 19th of Oct., 1845, to the defendant,
to show there were no grounds for that objection now.—Tho
Attorney•Cieneral submitted that the plaintiff should be non-
suited, as the evidence of liability was not sufficient —The
Lord Chief Baron was of opinion there was some evidence
t,r the jury ; and in summing up commented with severity
upon the fret of an indemnity having been given clandes-
tinely by Messrs. Parkes, Smith, and Co., to the defendant
The conduct of the former, by giving such an instrument
under such circumstances, was deserving of the utmost cen-
sure, and the defendant was equally culpsble for having ac-
cepted it. It was the duty,of provisional committeemen to
give (at least they professed to give) undertakings, with
which they had their names so connected, not only
their full unction, but the benefit of their judgment and
their personal influence. They mutt have, and the pre-
sumption was that they had, a personal risk and a personal
interest in the success of the scheme—that they perilled
their property for it. Whereas the' public were deceived
in such cases as the present. The defendant, who had re-
ceived an indemnity from the solicitors, was hut a mere pup-
pet in their hands, and the object in publishing his name as
a man of independent property was only to decoy others
into those risks from which he and persons similarly situated
were perfectly secured.—The jury, after some deliberation,
found a verdict for the defendant.