The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-20 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Nor Pates.— Bakes *r. Juitk• Wlllarue ODA common Juries.
SMITH V. PIITC11•1111 •ND OTHEILS.—LIABILITY OP
111011-BAILITYS or COUNTY Cutters Yon ACTS OF
TIISIDOEVICSU.s.—Tbia was an action of trespass, for break-
ing into the factory of Theme Smith, the plaintiff, a hair
manufacturer, in Cottage.row, B.rmonilsey, and falsely
arresting and imprisoning him, brought against William
Pritchard, high-bailiff of the County Court ef Southwark,
and Hobert B , hii officer, Wiliam Turns Peached,
high-bailiff of the Lambeth County Court. and David Jones,
one of the officers of the latter court. It appeared that a
I warrant for arresting and imprisoning for twenty days the
plaintiff's son, of the same name its himself, in consequence of
wow-appearance upon an order to pay oasts, was issued against
the sou from the Lawatih County C airt, which warrant was
directed to the defendant, William Tarne Pritchard, as
high bailiff of the Lambeth district, and was by him for-
warded with his warrant annexed thereto in the manner
required by the 10 4th Melon of the County Courts Act, to
the clerks of the Southwark County Court for execution
within that district, who reissued the same under the seal
of their court to the defendant, William Pritchard, high
bailiff of the Southwark Court, in the manner pointed out by
the act, where a party against whom an order of commit-
ment has been 1111140 is out of the juriseiction. The two
other defendants, Junes, an ogler of the Lambeth Court,
and Beaver, a bailiff of Southwark, taking with them the
warrant, went on the Ilth Jan. last to aintiff's facto-
ry, at B.rmondsey, which is within the Southwark
district, in search of the son. Upon getting duel they'
were refused admission by plaintiff, whereupon Jones went
round to a window where the plaintiff was standing, and
which looked into the st, et, and, thrusting his hand
through the iron bars, seized hold of him; but plaintiff
pulled himself airily, and shut down the window, of
which Jones Urea broke the glass. Failing to get
in in the morning, they came again the same after-
noon, accompani& by two policemen. Ater an ineffec-
tual attempt to force open the gates leading to the factory,
and although distinctly told by plaintiff that his son was not on
the premises, they managed to climb over some patinn at
the rear, followed by other people, and got into the factory-
yen'. In a violent and abusive manner they wait about the
factory in search of the plaintiff's son, and, on coming away,
gave the plaintiff liiintrif into the custody of the p ilicemen
by whom he was immediately Marched off to the station-
house, upon a charge of having assaulted the defendant Jones
whilst in the mention of his duty on the occasion at the
window in the earlier part of the morning. When the
charge was called on, it was immediately dismissed.
Thee' facts having been proved in support of
the plaintiff's claim to compensation in damages,
in the present action, Mr. Ilumfrey objected—firstly, on
behalf of the defendant, William Tame Pritchard, high
bailiff for the Lambeth County Court, that there was no case
re go to the jury as against him, inasmuch as he could not
lie made liable for the wro”gful acts of an officer done
without the limits of his district. His second objection was,
there was no evidence of liability against William Pritchard,
high bailiff of Southwark, inasmuch as the 23rd section of the
act, which providi that every such high bailiff shall be
responsible for all the acts and defaults of himself and the
bailiffs appointed to ss-ist him, in like manner as the sheriff
of any county of England is responsible for the acts and de.
hiults of himself and his officers," did net apply in the pre-
sent env, where the warrant was Otillirr•liy lesu, d from
anothir court; thfray, he contended, as to taking
plaintiff into custody, this was a dist act matter from
the execution of the process in hand, and for which the de.
Pendants, Jones and Beaver. were al ,ne liable. —Mr. Ser-
jeant Byles said he relied upon the 33rd and 114th si diem,
to render the high baiiffs liable for the taking of the plaintiff
into custody. The Judge said, in his opinion there was no
ev.dence whatever soled the High Bailiff of Lambeth. who
discharged himself by putting the warrant into the hands of
the officers of another district; but that as regarded the High
Bailiff of Southwark, he thought he was liable under the
33rd section for the entry up is and damage done to the pre-
mises, in the same way as a sheriff would he fur the acts of
his officer acting under a warrant. But with respect to
taking the plaintiff into custody upon the mere pretence of
en assault having been committed by him, where there was no
assault in fact, by him, the two reacher& were exempt from
liability. In order, however, to raise this point, be would direct
the jury to find damages separately. The jury abetted the
damages in espect of tho trespass at 101 , and for the assault
and imprisonment of plaintiff 601., whereupon the judge
directed a verdict for the plaintiff against Jones and Beaver,
damages, 401. ; and as to the two other defendants, a verdict
for thern,reserving leave to plaintiff to move to enter a verdict
against bath or either of the Pritchards fur the whole or
smaller amount.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
Bittlop to F.rror.—Present Mr. Baron Parle, Mr. Baron Aldereon,
Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Justice Mauls, Mr. Baron Rolfe, Mr. Jus-
tice Creswell, and Mr. Baron Plait.
THZ QUERN V. THE LORD MAYOR OF LONDON.—Ao•
MISSION OP MK. ASHUILMT TO THE LOUD MATOR'S COVET.
—Mr. Baron Parke delivered judgment. lie said the case
came before them on a writ of error on a demurrer to a
mandamus of the Court of Queen's Bench, directing the
Lord Mayor of London to admit Mr William Ashurst, a
solicitor of the superior courts at Westminster, to practise as
• solicitor before the Lord Mayor's Court, in conformity
with the provisions of the 27th section of the G & 7 Vic., c.
73. The question raised was, whether the Lord Mayor's
Court was ur was not an inferior court, and whether or not
the Court of Queen's Bench had a right to issue the manda-
mus. Upon that question the court of error was not en-
tirely agreed. But a further question arose, whether or not
the mandamus could le sustained; and upon that question
the court was agreed that tho mandamus did nut show that
the Lord Mayor's Court was en inferior min, nod therefore
the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in favour of
admitting Mr. Ashurat must be reverses'.
DOUGLAS F. Tits QUERN. BHINERT.—Mr. Peacock
appeared in support of the writ of error.—Sir F. Thesiur
begged for their lordships' indulgence in this case; he had
been devoting himself entirely to the easel; of " Gosling e.
Velney " and " Dunn e. the Queen," and he really had not
had time to devote himself to this ease.—Mr. Peacock said
his client wan in prison, and could not obtain hail.—Mr.
Baron Parke said they. must go on.—Mr. Peacock said this
was on information at the suit of the A•torn( y (1. neral
against Archibald Douglas, and it had been Ish d
an offence alleged to have been committed under the 33rd
George 111., chap. 62, for receiving a present or gift
when in the service of the East India Company. The intur-
mation had contained GO counts; but the defendant had
been acquitted on several counts. A nolle prosequl had
been entered on several others, and the defendant had
been found guilty upon nine. By the judgment of the
Court of Queen's Bench the defendant was ordered to be
impri oned for 12 months, to pay certain finci, and then it
went on to may that he should forfeit several sums of mosey
amounting to 3,5461. 16s. Bd., being the value of the gifts,
and to be imprisoned till they were paid. He objected to that
part of the judgment which related to the forfritures. He
contended that the court had no power to adjudge the de-
fendant to pay the value of the stilts, but ought to have ad-
judged hint to forfeit the gift itself, or the value of them, and
he also contended that the court tad no power to order him
to be imprisoned until the value of the gift was paid, and
which it had directed. The question arose upon the con-
struction of the 33rd George ill., chapter 52. The Lamed
counsel urged that the real meaning of the act was, that the
gift or pre‘ent should be made to the party and received by
him under colour of his office exclusively ; otherwise, if a
mother seat a bible to her son who was a cadet in India. it
would be an offence; or if any gentleman here sent out a
book, which he had published, as a present to the chief
justice of Bombay, that learned person would be liable to
punishment under the statute.—Mr. Justice Mande: Sup-
pose a man had given him six years ago a hone which was
then twelve yeah old, but wee now six yearn older and
broken down, you would say he should return the horse.
—Mr. Peacock said, exactly so; and if the horse was dead
he might give the value as summed by • jury. At all events
the forfeiture ought not to be enforced by a criminal punish.
went.—Mr. Justice Maisie: Suppose it was something to eat
and he had eaten it, or something to drink and he bad drunk
it I—Mr. Peacock : Then, if he could not restore the gift
itself he must pay the value of it. It must be in the elk rna-
Bee, and at the option of the party; otherwise, if he had re.
ceived an Arab horse which was dead, if he could not return it
he might be imprisoned for life.—Mr. Baron Platt : If the pu-
nishment for an offence is transportation or imprisonment,
the prisoner is not asked which he would prefer, but the
judge in his discretion awards the punishment. —Mr. Pea-
cock said, the punishment was for a misdemeanour; but as
to the forfeiture of the gift, or the value of it, the crown
should have proceeded fur it in the Court of Exchequer.
But it was not the subject of criminal punishment --Mr.
Baron Alderson wanted to /Mow how the court ascertained
the value of the gift I—Mr. Peacock said, the gift was in ru
pees, and the jury &seemed the value of the rupees at Is. 11d.
etch.—After some discussion as to the mode in which the
cee,Met was entered en the record, it was arranged that the
further argument should be postponed and the record
amended in the meantime ; the cue to be proceeded with
first ea Friday.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Comlmbues Sitephead.
RI7LI MI TO TR °BANTU( 0 OT CIATITICATE6.—J.
Maims *•dAlr... of BOIOM/014011, 011114 ap fof Ids osnificsto,