The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

THE EXP.

I, F:

ismer, which they submitted mat be 'floured upon the
ground of misjoinder of parties, want of equity in the plain-
tiff, and want of interest to the demurring defendants. —M r.
Russell argued in support of the bill.—Hia Honour allowed
the demurrer with coats, and gave three weeks' time to
amend. He considered the allegations of the bill at being
venue and obscure.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.
Nm Patus.—at Oulldhall, before Lori Denman and a !pedal lug.
Ctutarrre o. Ountr.—Mauctous PRocecarion.-111r.
Cockburn, Q.C., and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff,
who sought to recover damages for a malicloes prosecution
on a charge of forgery alleged to have been instituted against
him by the defendant. Sir F. nosier, Q.C. and Mr.
Atherton appeared ter the defendant and contended that
the prosecution had been instituted by Maus. Fuller, the
bankers, and not by the defendant. It appeared that a
sum of 6001. had been obtained fres Messrs. Fuller by a
forged cheque, purporting to be signed by the defendant.
Subsequently, the suspicions of Mesas. Fuller, and of the
defendant, were directed to the plaintiff, and after advising
with Mr. Taylor, their attorney and taking the *pinion of
Mr. Clarkson, the banister, Mews. Fuller, through Mr.
Taylor, canard the plaintiff to be apprehended, and brought
before the Lord Mayor, on a charge of forgery. The case
wee twice heard, and at the clue of the second hearing Mr.
James, who appeared for the present plaintiff, called on Mr.
Clarkson, who conducted the proeireutacm, to say whether he
penined in the charge. Mr. Clarkson declared that he aban-
doned it. Thereupon this action was brought, and when
process was served the defendant referred to Mr. Tayler, as
the solicitor for Menus. Fuller, and that gentleman de-
fended the action. It wu now admitted the charge
wu without foundation. One of the Mean. Fuller
appeared as a witness, and said that his firm bad employed
Mi. Taylor to proeecute, that the defendant bad only been
a witness, and that this action was on that ground defended
by the firm.—Mr. Taylor deposed te the same effect—Wit-
newts for the plaintiff, however, said that Mr. Clarkson,
when he abandoned the prosecution at the ileasion-house,
was salted whether he, es counsel for Mr. Ohrly, would go
on with the prosecution ? This was denied on the part of the
defendant. Mr. Goodman, the clerk at the Manson-honor,
was called, and described what had taken place there.
Having been asked whether a great number of persons bad
not been present en the first ootasion—he said that the pub- '
lic was not present —Lord Denman: Were there no''
reporter' present t—Witzese : One reporter was present, but
ea I considered the use a doubtful one, I requested that gen-
tleman not to print it —Lord Denman : Do you consider
that right ? I think it is not. The public understands the
nature of these proceedings, and that they are inquiries
merely preliminary that lead to farther isseeetigatton, if
further investigation should be neeesaary. There are, no doubt,
eases which it is right altogether to ex ode from the &swept-
pen, bat I think that in general the public ought to know all.
It tends very much to the furtherance of truth and justice. 1
Lord Denman left it to the jury to say whether the defend-
ant had.° conducted himself as to appear to be the proseentor
of the charge of forgery, and whether therein he had been !
actuated by malice. As te the question of reasonable and
probable cause, which depended entirely on a comparison of
handwritings, he had a distrust of any each comparison un- '
less it were connected with other facts strongly tending to
fix the guilt of the person whom the comparison affected.
Re therefore was of opinion that there had not been in law
reasonable and probable cause. The other two questions
were for than. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff
—damages 2501.