The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-07 00:00:00

SSIZB IN TEL LIGEFCE:

oittCLllT.—KmosroN, Arm 6.
80Y1.3 AND W3l IS e. TAR-N.—FALSE Isteniseituturftr.
—This woo a spezial jury cause, tried on Monday, before the
Lord Chief J office. The action was brought to recover damages
I.r the film imprisonment of the p;matiff's wife.—The de.
fecdsnt is a linendreper, ant the plaintiff and his wife went
to his shop and ordered a quantity of goods, which were to
he paid for on the Monday following. When, however, the
foreman went to receive payment, the parties could not he
found, and the plaintiff's wife being afterwards mcr seciden-
tftlly, was given into custody ; but is appeared that the
charge was dismissed by the police magistrate, and the pre-
sent action was 'nought to recover damages for the imprison-
ment she had ti.us, as it was alleged, wrongfully sustained.
—Mr. E. James, for the defendant, characterised the action u
a meat improper one,and a:A, he was satisfied the jury would
consider t,e lowest coin of the realm a sufficient compensa-
tion for the divulge that had been sustained.—The jury
found for the plaintiff. D.usaftee—One Farthing.
WESTERN CIRCUIT.—TAUNTON, MONDAY.
Caows Cot cr.—Before Mr. Ando' Cresawelt.

CIURGE or M ~N4LAvoiersa.—A SUIUICAL
—Thnnsas Penal!, aged 19, was indicted for the in...slough-
ter of William Holland, by throwing • stone at him, which
ceased a compound fracture of the skull, and Henry Ilmke,
George Chant, and William Frampton, were arraigned es
amessarim The occurrence moss out of a quarrel in a
public-house, on leaving which, the prisoner Penall threw a
stone at deceived with such violence, as to knock him down.
He was unable to rice without assistance, and a medeal min
having been called to attend him, his skull was fouttl to be
fractured. A few weeks afterwards, the man died. Upon
these facts a question arose similar to that which was argued
at the ;rig' of Lieutenant Pl-m. in reference to the duel at
Portsmouth. Mr. Frederick Nesbitt, a surgeon, at Yeovil,
stated, that at ono o'clock on the morning of the Sth Sep-
tember, he received a message to attend the deceased ; but,
finding that he was already under medical care, he :lid not
visit him until nine o'clock. Uprm eetatining his 4.01, he
found that it had received a comn.'..nd fracture ; end that a
portion of the true was lying on the surface of the brain.
As this sr'S.istoms were tl'.ase of "compression," as well as
" coneursion, it was evident that the operation of trepan-
ning must be performed some time or other, and on the fol-
lowing day he performed it, in the presence of Mr. Shorland,
another surgeon, but no improvement was visible until the
third day from that period. The man was then decidedly
better, and he (witness) had strong hopes that he would
ultimately recover. He died, however, about a fortnight
afterwards, and at the post-mortent examination it was
hand that his death was caused by an abscess
ha the brain, and by inflammation of its membranes.
Iu Ormes-examination, the witness stated that it would be
very dangerous to perform the operation after the inflamma-
tion had taken place : the patient would probably die in any
ca e. There was no inflammation at the time the patient
underwent the operation.—Mr. Moody here interposed on
behalf of the prosecution, stating that Mr. Justice Erie had
decided, at the trial of Mr. Pyro, that if the operation were
rendered necessary by the wound inflicted by the prisoner,
an inquiry could not bo gone into as to whether another
mode of treatment might or might not have raved the
patient's life.—Mr. Edwards, for the defence, said his object
was to prove that, at the time the operation was performi4
the inflamthation had commenced, and that, therefore, theft
was the immediate cause of death. He believed he was is •
position to prove that if the operation had taken place behme
the inflammation came on, the patient would in all probe,
bility have recovered.—Mr. Justice Creswell : In addition
to that, are you in a situation to prove that the wound was
net a mortal one ?—Mr. Edwards said he did not Wok
the evidence for the prisoner would sto to that extent.
—Mr. Justice Creswell said the cam for the defence apeared to stand thus : the man bed received a mortal wound,
of which he would have died in a month ; but by reason
of the operation, he died in a week.—Mr. Edwards said he
thought it would appear that the abscess was caused by the
operation.—Mr. Justice Creswell observed that abscesses ge
nerally srsee from inflammatien, and if the wound whisk
produced the inflammation in the present use was of a mortal
nature, the question so to the result of the operation could
not be raised.--Mr. Edwards then addressed the jury for the
prisoners, and calleJ several witnesses to prove that Penall
was not the person who threw the stone at the deceased,
and that the party to which the prisoners belonged had
merely acted in their own defence.—Mr. Justice Croswell,
in summing up, said the law was, that if two bodies of men
were engaged in throwing stones, the members of each party
were responsible for any damage that might be done by one
of his aosociates. The question, then, was, whether the pri-
soner Penall threw the stone at the deceased, and whether
the other prisoners were present, supporting and encouraging
him? Verdict—Guilty. Sentence—One month's imprison-
ment; the learned judge observing that the prisoners had
already been in gaol six months.
Tits Coca's.—Great complaints are being made respect-
ing the inconvenient construction of these courts. The
passages are so narrow, and the accommodation afforded to
the various - engaged so extremely limited, that the
intercepted ' '