The Express.
London, England, 1849-12-06 00:00:00

was merely • civil ON there was no question of fraud.
The ease au beard oa dm 14th of Jan., 1848, and did not
take three minus* to adjudicate. Au order was made that
the debt should be paid by instalments, one of which was to
Ibe paid on the 14th of February. On 6th of March Pollett
was taken into custody by two officers, and carried to Cold-
bath.fields prison and lodged there. The proceeding of the
County Court wee somewhat extraordinary, as ne judgment
summons had been issued as hy the 98th section of the
County Court Act was required. The complaint made by
the plaintiff against the defendant was that he had been
treated as a person convicted of misdemeanor, bad had his
hair cut dose, his whiskers shaved off, had been clothed is
the convict dress, marked with a number, and been placed
to hard labour by pickirg oakum. He had been associated
with felons, fed on the wretched prison diet of gruel and
bread, and, in short, had been treated like • convicted felon,
for not paying a debt of 11. The defendant was the only
person against whom an action could be brought to
try • great consitutional question and the power of
the County Court to commit in this manner. The
Plaintiff had applied to the magistrates and to par-
lament, but could obtain no redress. The defendant
hod been asked for a c vy of the warrant, and had refused,
and pfaiotiff had also applied to the Home Secretary for •
copy, but that gentleman had no control over it. It was
a most extraordinary thing in the jurisdiction of the County
Court, that a copy of the warrant was not to be obtained,
which was not the cats in this or any other court. He was
entitled to damage, for this injury.
The following witnesses were called for the plaintiff.
Thomas Ridington—l am a bootmaker residing in Fins-
bury-pavement. I have known plaintiff 14 years. I em-
ployed him to collect my debts for some years. I remember
summoning the plaintiff to the County Crain for • debt of
If. 193. I did nut charge him with fraud. He claimed to
deduct a guinea. The order now shown to me was subse-
quently made that he should pay by 11. • month. Hewes very
poor at that time. I applied for execution, when the instal-
ment was not paid. 1 got an execution for which I paid
nine shillings. I never attended a judgment summons. I
went about a fortnight afterwards with the officers. It may
have been the 6th Marta. The two men took him into cus-
tody. I did not see when he went. He paid me the debt
when he was dischar4ed from prison.
Choss-examined—When I took out the execution I left
tbe mod to do its duty. I paid the money for him to be
Italia Into custody, and it was at my request he was taken.
I divested the officers to take him into custody. The pay-
ments were to be made at tee office in 'Whiuchapel.
Plaintiff had received money for me for six or seven years.
I applied to Mr. Ballantine, the police magistrate, to know
what I was to do, as he had defrauded me, and he told me
to sue in the County Court. I never said he had not de-
frauded me. I told Mr. BaUantine the case. I did not
charge him with defrauding me. I stated he had kept back
money belonging to me. I went to know if I could get a
warrant.
Reexamined—Mr. Ballantise told me to go to the County
Court. He claimed to deduct • guinea for • pa, went to a
Mr. Watts, an attorney, which 1 did not understand. He
tendered me the balance. I did not know to what prison he
was going to be taken.
William Bartholomew—l am a journeyman weaver in
Spitalfi.lds. Oa 6th March I was a prisoner in Coldbath-
fields Prison, for an assault on a policeman, for which 1 was
fined 50 shillings, or 14 days' imprisonment. Mr. Follett was
there when I went. He was brought into the same room as
I was. Mr. Chesterton was the governor. On the following
m dming he was placed with me and a number of prisoners,
'when the governor was there. He asked us all what we were
1, there for. He asked Pollett, who said, " For a debt." The
governor said, " Yogovernor sold, u're here for ntempt ourt." Follett
aid, " No." The co
" Silence ; f yocouth(' here for
correction, and correction you shall have." There was a boy
there for • felony. lie was one of those in a raw when the
questions were asked. We got our prison clothes. They
were blue clothes. Pollett was in the same place with
me. lie was numbered 41. We were searched
I and Mr. PoUctt went to picking oakum. He was told to
have his hair cut. He objected, and was told to be silent.
His hair was cut and his whiskers shaved off. He was there
Ave days. There were between 600 and 700 men and boys.
lie was allowanced to pick oakum. On the Wednesday one
of the prisoners said to one of the officers, " This man is
going into • fit." I observed he was ill and lying on the
form. He wished to see the doctor, and he was relieved
from task-work. He is about 50 years old. I saw nothing
of him after Friday. He had gruel the same as I had, and
meat twice a week. He asked for water instead of gruel,
and was answered " No, water is allowed only once • day."
Cross-examined—l went in at two o'clock on Monday. I
saw Pollett when I went in. 1 did not see him after Friday.
I know it is the House of Correction fer Middlesex. I do not
know if there are two classes of prisoner.. I don't know if
Follett was kept with a felon. I did not see the boy
who was in for felony after we were examined. I saw
him shaved. He refused, as he said he did not want it.
His whiskers were shaved off from under his chin. I was
kept silent while I was there.
' Edward Clarke—l am son of the attorney to plaintiff. I
have witnessed • written demand on Mr. Chesterton for a
copy delis warrant and sow a signed copy of it delivered to
him. He said he'd step in and speak to the magistrates.
lie went in and returned, and refused it. 1 have never
seen the warrant.
.

Cross-examined—l am clerk to my father. I am articled.
I don't know where I first saw the plaintiff. It may have
been soon after he came out of prison. It may have been •
week, or a day or two afterwards. My lather's office is in
Featherstont-buiklings, Holborn. He has been there Your
years. Pollen lives in the Commercial-road. I have not
seen him frequently since he came out of prison. When my
father wanted to see him he wrote to him and then he came.
I made the demand on Mr. Chesterton on the 31st of March.
Ido not remember telling him the demand was made for
the purpose of bringing an action. There have been two
actions for Pollett—one arms out of a libel. My father
practises in the County Court to a oonsiderable extent, and
in the Whitechapel Court.
Re.examined—The other action was for a libel by the clerk
of the County Court.
A letter from Mr. Chesterton, directing that process might
Is sent to the solicitm to the county magistrates, was read.
The demand for a copy of the warrant was also read.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
lie. W. H. Watson (with whom was Mr. l'ashley) ad.
deemed the jury for the defence, and contended that there
isonlii be no doubt that Coldbeth.fields Prison was the
Route of Correction for Middlesex, and the term correction
I showed that it was a prison where offenders were sent under
the provisions of acts of parliament, and the plaintiff
was committed to that prison by some authority, right or
wrong, under an act of parliament. The whole
question was whether, as the plaintiff was imprisoned
by an express provision of • statute, and the defendant had
reserved the warrant of the County Court, he could refuse to
receive him. He had endeavoured to justify himself on this
ground by his pleas, but the plaintiff demurred to those
pleas, and so took out of the cousideration of the jury this
point altogether, and then came and asked for damages.
The witness Ridington was the proper person against wham
the action should have been brought if the process of the
County Court was wrong. All the governor of the House of
Correction could do was to obey the order contained in the
warrant, and keep the prisoner in safe custosy, and the per-
sons issuing the illegal warrant were alone liable. By the
plaintiff's demurring to the defendant's pleas of justification
he was precluded from producing ; the warrant in evi-
dence in mitigation of damages, which was all he ctuld
ask, as • verdict must pass against him. The
governor was bound by the rules of the prison, as
laid down by the magistrates, and those he was onliied to
enforce. There were only two classes of prisoners in the
prison—misdemeanants and felons—and it was clearly
proved that the plaintiff had not been placed among the
felons. The learned counsel urged that very small damages
would meet the j
_notice of the case as against this defendant
Mr. Justice Wightman, in summing up, told the jun
that for the purpose of considering the question ell that keel
been done must be taken as illegal, as there was on hems of
justification. AU that the defendant could ask MIN that
under the circumstances the damages should be mitigated,
on the ground that the defendant had acted as a public
facer in the discharge of his duty. The county court had
power to commit to the Rouse of Correction under the
statute, bat nothing was said about how the prisoners wen to
be treated. There must be a verdict for the plaintiff, and
the only question was as to the amount of damages.—The
jury retired to consider their verdict.
ghostly after, on a suggestion being made by the learned
monasel for the plaintiff, his lordship recalled the jury, and
told them that, as there were two pleas of justification which
treated the trespasses complained of separately, one of which
might hereafter be found to be good, and the other bad; to
avoid any difficulty which might thence arias on a general
aessesraent of damages, they mast find the damages—for the
imprisonment of the plaintiff, for the searching ana shaving,
for his hating been treated as • convicted misdemeanant and
being so fad, for shaving him and cutting off his whiskers, all
separately.
Atter being absent some time, the jury returned a rerd;ct
for the plaintiff—Damages, 261.—f0r the imprisoment, 61. ;
for searching and sharing, 101. ; for improper treatment as a
misdemeanant, 101.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAY.
&I MP •T N/S1 PIUVA—BSPOII Lose Cam lifflCX WILMS ANA

• Srecui.Jray.~
HOAILI v. 81LyzaLocx.—Linex..

Mr. Carter was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeant
Shee and Mr. Creasy appeared for the detendant.
This wee an action brought by Miss Sarah Mary Doan,
the daughter of a deceased lieutenant in the royal navy,
against the defendant, as the proprietor of a newspaper
called the brownout Standard, published in Rutland-p!ace,
Lower Themes-street, to recover compensation in damages
for two alleged libel' which the defendant had
published ooncorniag the plaintiff in his newspaper. The
lint alleged libel wee dated on the 14th August, 1847, and
the second on the 23rd et October in the same year. The
fint alleged libel was said to be contained in a report of the
case of " Hoare v. Dickson," which was an action for slander,
which was tried at Croydon before Mr. Baron Puke, is the
summer of 1847. A report of that trial appeared in the de-
fendant's newspaper, of the 14th of August, 1847. The first
alleged libel, of which Miss Hoare now complained, was con-
tained in the speech of Mr. Serjeant Shoe, who en that oc-
casion appeared for the defendant, Captain Dickson,
who was the Secretary to the Royal Naval Benevolent
Society. Is the course of his speech at Croydon,
the learned serjeant read letter from different
parties containing etatentents seriously affectiag Miss Hoare
character. A summary of those letters was given in the re.
port of the trial which appeared In the defindant's uvrape,
per. That summary was now said to be incorrect, and to
have greatly injured the plaintiff. The statements contained
In the letters have already append in our report of the case
of " Hoer* e. Couplaud," which was tried on the 27th
of last June. The mond a/loged libel was a report of the
meeting of the members of the Royal Ravel Benevolent
Society, when Kiss Hoare's claims to relief were discussed.
Tsai report Os plaintiff sow cooplalsod of as libellous