The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-24 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Nisi Pen's.—Before Sir P. rollosih C. 8., anis tendon Epecial Jury.
CLARK V. REMEDY AND EDWARDS —FALSE IMPRISON-
MENT.—FOROED RAILWAY SCRIP.—This was an action to
recover compensation from the defendants, for having
caused the plaintiff to be imprisoned upon a charge of having
uttered forged scrip of the Buckinghamshire Railway Com-
pany. The defendants pleaded net guilty, and a justifica-
tion stating that a forgery had been committed, and that
reasonable and probable cause existed for believing that the
plaintiff was implicatedin it. The case, which was part heard
yesterday, was resumed this morning, and occupied the
greater part of the day. It appeared that a Mr. E. Richards,
secretary to the Kentish Coast Railway, was indebted to
Mr. Robins, a stockbroker, in the sum of 501. upon certain
railway dealings. About the month of April last, during
Robins's absence from London, Richards went to his office,
and saw the defendant Edwards, who was clerk to Mr.
Robins, and to whom he handed fifty shares in the Bucking-
hamstire Railway, together with a receipt for the deposit of
two guineas per share. Richards directed Edwards to sell
the scrip, and to retain the stun due to Mr. Robins.
Some time afterwards, the plaintiff, who had a desk in the
Hall of Commerce, and had been formerly engaged in the
lace trade, in which it appeared he was not very successful,
was introduced by Richards to Edwards, as • person anxious
to dispose of some more scrip in the Buckinghamshire line,
and a stipulation was made by Richards that one per cent.
only should be charged for commission, and that it should
be divided equally between Edwards and the plaintilf. Upon
this understanding the plaintiff gave Edwards 50 shares, in
return for which he got a cheque upon Glyn and Co.,
Robins's bankers. The shares were resold by Edwards,
when it was discovered that they were forged, and two per-
sons, named Falkener and Fabian, were charged with the
offence and brought before the magistrates to answer for it.
It appeared that Richards knew something of both those
parties, and the fact that the plaintiff had been introduced
by Richards to Edwards excited some suspicion to his pre-
judice. An interview subsequently took place at Mr.
Robins', office between the plair_tiff and Mr. Edwards,
a barrister, who is brother of one of the defendants.
The plaintiff was then required to refund the
money he had received for the scrip, as they proved to be
forged. He then stated that he was merely Richards's agent,
and had handed over to him the sum he had received ; how-
ever, sooner than any one should lose by him, he offered to
pay 101. down, and to give security for the payment of the
remainder. This arrangement was assented to, and was
about to be reduced to writing, when Mr. Newsom, the
other defendant (father-in-law of Mr. Robins) interposed,
and said that his son-in-law's character and position in the
Stock Exchange market rendered it utterly impossible that
he should be a party to any compromise of so serious a charge
as that made against the defendant, and that the whole affair
should be publicly investigated. The plaintiff expressed his
willingness that the matter, as far as he was concerned,
should be fully investigated, stating that Richards had got
him into it. The defendant then, la the absence of Mr.
Robins, gave the plaintiff into the custody of a police con-
stable, on the charge of having uttered the scrip
certificates in question. Edwards joined in the
charge, and the defendant was brought to a police-
station, and next day before the Lord Mayor,
who, on the first impression, thought the charge so serious,
that he refused to take bail, and the plaintiff was committed
to the Compter, where he was detained from Monday till
Tuesday. He was then brought up to be re-examined, and
Richards having stated that he had given the scrip certifi-
cates to the plaintiff, who had no means of knowing they
were not genuine, be was discharged from custody.
Sir F. Thesiger, Q.C., with Mr. Mellor and Mr. James,
conducted the plaintiff's case, and called Richards, who dis-
tinctly swore, that not only the plaintiff, but he (witness),
had no reason whatever to believe the scrip certificates were
forged. He also deposed that he did not introduce the
plaintiff as the principal to Edwards, but explicitly informed
him that he was a broker. That was his reason for stipulat-
ing that he should have half per cent. out of the commis-
sion on the transaction.
_ . _

Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Greenwood, were counsel for
the defendants. .

The Lord Chief Baron (summing up) said that the sus-
picion which rested upon the plaintiff arose from the un-
happy connexion between him and Richards; but there was
no reason for supposing for a moment that he had any parti-
cipation in or knowledge of the forgery. It was for the jury
to say whether the defendants were justified, under all the
circumstances, in believing that the plaintiff was implicated
in the transaction. If the offence amounted only to a mis-
demeanour, there ought to be a verdict for the plaintiff; and
the point as to the character of the offence would be settled
hereafter by the court in banco ; but if they supposed the
offence with which the plaintiff was charged amounted to a
felony, then the question was whether the defendants, having
regard to all the circumstances, had reasonable and probable
cause for giving the plaintiff into custody.
The jury distinctly expressed their opinion that the plain-
tiff was perfectly exonerated from any guilt whatever in the
matter, but they found a verdict for the defendants upon the
special plea of justification, on the ground that reasonable
and probable cause did exist for suspecting that the plaintiff
was implicated in the forgery.
The learned judge observed that the plaintiff had suc-
ceeded in completely exonerating and vindicating his
character.—This case terminated the present sittings.