The Express.
London, England, 1847-10-18 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.

TAR ROVIIERT IN MLTIDOX-RTILENT.—EDWARDS V. TILAF-
PORD.—W. Edwards was the plaintifr. and E. W. Trafford,
Esq., of No. 14, Nladdex-etreet, Regent-street, and of
Wroxham-hall, Norfolk, was the defendant. The action
was brought to recover the sum of Zit, as compensation for
the unlawful imprisonment of the plaintiff against his will.
The defendant pleaded a justification. The circumstances
arose out of the plaintiff and his wife having been taken up
upon a charge of having robbed the defendant's house,but being
ultimately discharged.--Mr. Wordsworth, on the part of the
defendant, contended that there was probable cause for the
apprehension of the plaintiff, and that being so, no action
could lie.—Alter hearing the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Traf-
ford, and that of other witnesses, the cm was adjourned, the
learned judge expressing himself strongly in favour of the
ow.

KENT COUNTY COURT.
TALLY CASB..—WINDBIL V. Data.—The plaintiff in this
case had reduced his bill to 101. 19.. Ild., to bring it within
thejurisdiction of this court. Plaintiff was formerly a draper
at Woolwich, sod defendant is a labouring man, earning
only Sr. a week. The original bill wee for 297.—The defend.
ant denied all knowledge of the affair, but admitted that his
wife might have known something about it.—The learned
judge strongly condemned the ',tactic* adopted in this ease,
an said it was not to be supposed a man in Lin receipt of Bs.
a week, earned by the sweat of his brow, could, or would,
allow his wife to run an account for drapery to nearly 30/.
He should, therefore, require better evidence of the defend-
ant's knowledge of the eitzersgance before he made an order.
Judgment for defendant.

MIURLES,, sEssioNs..

Mane Mr. scricant .4 a full beach of
insghtmtes.
THR LAW or lANDLOILD ANII TINANT.—r. Pratt, a
house-agent, Liverpool-road, WWI indicted for hevieg
unaudited an assault upon Caroline Paurnore. The hus-
band of the prosecutrix was tenant to a Mr. Arden, who was
usually represented by a gentleman of the name ofr Nicholls.
The house they resided in was No. 12, Compton-street,
Brunswick-square. After having been there for some time
the rent fell into arrear. Mr. Nicholls thereupon insisted
either upon payment or that her husband would quit tke
house. The former request, in consequence of his straitened
circumstances, he was unable to comply with. Several fur-
ther applications users made for the payment, but from ina-
bility the money still remained unpaid, whereupon Mr,
Nicholls threatened to eject the family. This threat
was ultimately carried out be the defendant, under the
authority of the landlord. 'Accordingly, on the 13th
of August, the defendant went to the house and
demanded possession, which the wife refsese'd to
accord. After a variety of appeals to her, but all is vain, he
broke one of the panes of glass, and, patting his hand
through, contrived to unfasten the hasp and then life up the
window. lie put his son through into the bourse, when the
latter opened the door. He now renewed his demand of
possession, but the woman still declined to accede, and
alleged as her reason that, as her husband was then iu the
country attending the funeral of his father, she was anxious
to consult a friend as to the course she ought to pursue, and
oleo to enable her to find some lodgings to which she might
take her family. The defendant then told her that he would
give her three hours to procure the lodgings, and that on his
return he should expect her to hand over the key. At
seven o'clock the defendant again called, when they had
some further coßversation, which resulted in the defendant
consenting to permit her to remain in the house till the
following morning, at which period be said he should expect
possession. The next morning he went and took some men
with him, but on their arrival at the house thee found the
door closed against them. Mrs. Passmore would not admit
him, and he therefore broke open the door with a crowbar with
which he had provided himself. The instant this was done
she ran up stein, and locked herself in the drawing-room.
The defendant and his men, however, followed her up stairs,
and also broke open this second door. The defendant de-
manded that she would give up the key, and quit the house.
She refused, and then he gave directions to his men to take
her down stairs and put her out. They laid hold of her
accordingly, and took her down stairs, but, upon their
reaching the street door, a mob of cabmen rushed in and
rescued her. She instantly ran up stairs again, but the men
having followed, laid hold of her by the legs and shoulders,
dragged her down, and she was thrown out upon the pave-
ment. As ate was being dragged down the stairs she laid
hold of the banisters, but the defendant hammered her
fingers until she was obliged to let go. By this proceeding
he dislocated one of her fingers. Prior to her having been
thrown on to the pavement one of the men kicked her with
so much violence on the side as to cause the *fracture of one
of her ribs. Her four children were next turned out, and
she was picked up and carried in a fainting state to a neigh-
bouring public-house.
A person of the name of Creasy, a tradesman in the
neighbourhood, said that he was passing the house, and saw
the woman net only thrown eat, but also kicked by one of
the men. The whole street was in an uproar upon the I
occasion.
Mr. Clarkson, on behalf of the defendant, addressed the
jury, observing that the landlord in this particular case was,
by the terms of the agreement under which the house had
i been taken by Paasmore, placed in the same position es a
I sheriff in the eau of an execution directed to him on a judg-
ment in ejectment for the recovery of possession of the pre-
mises. The proseculr,x (Passmore) had pertinaciously
maintained possession of these premises, notwithstanding there
had been a considerable arrear of rent, payment ss well as
peaceable possession having been demanded by Mr. Nicholls,
who acted under the authority of a power of attorney from
Mr. Arden, the landlord. As to the plea that there had
been an excess of force used in the accomplishing the remo-
val of Mrs. Passmore, he was prepared to show that there
had not been any more force brought into operation thou
had been required for the removal of a violent and an
obstinate woman. As an instance of the vertu
of conduct she had indulged in he might rate,
for he wee about to prove the fact, notwith-
standing she had denied that it was so, that upon the defend-
ant and his men going to her she had held out a threat that
she would stab the first who attempted to lay hands upon her.
The learned judge said that it appeared to him that the
agreement was a justification for the expulsion of the party,
and that the defendant was fully justified in the course he had
taken, unless it could be proved that in the accomplishment
of that step he had wed unnecessary violence.
A number of witnesses were then called on behalf of the
defendant, by whom it was proved that repented applications
for payment had been made, and that indulgence as to time
had been given ; and then that when the defendant and his
men had ultimately been driven to force their entrance, not
only into tke house but into the drawing-room, the prearecu-
trix threatened to stab the first who should approach her.
She then opened her front window, and sitting upon the
sill pulled down the sash, so that whilst her legs and feet
were dangling in the room her head and body were on the
outside. All this time she was ceiling out to the cabmen—
(there is a cab-stand in the street)—for assistance. With
much difficulty, however, the men laid hold of her,
and as has already been stated she was set at liberty by the
mob as soon as the door was opened. A second time she
retreated up stairs, and resumed her former situation at the
window. From this she was once more taken and put ants[
the door. The men denied that any of them had kicked her.
The learned judge then left it to the jury to say whether
there had beer. a greater proportion of force used than was
necessary to regain possession from an unlawful possessor.—
The jury consulted about an hour, and then returned into
court with a verdict of Aquittat.