The Express.
London, England, 1853-08-10 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CROTDON, AuonsT 9.
Barons TEA Lent Cum Banos •eD • Brum Um
N0R11.13 D. LIDDELL.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant, the Hon. Mr. Liddell, to recover damages upon
a declaration containing three separate counts—one for false
imprisonment, a second for a malicious prosecution, and •
third for libel.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Maude, were counsel
for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. James, Q.C., Mr. Bramwell,
Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins, were counsel for the defendant.

It appeared (tam the statement of the learned counsel for
the plaintiff, and the evidence given by himself, that he had
been engaged as valet to the defendant for a considerable
period, and that at the time the occurrence took place be
was staying with him in that capacity at Revensworth
Castle, the seat of Lord Ravensworth, the father of the
defendant. On the night of the 31st December, the defen-
dant and his lady retired to their sleepiag apartment, the
door of which was left a-jar, end about three o'clock in the
morning, Mr. Liddell having occasion to go into the deem-
ing-room adjoining the bed-room, discovered that some
person had been there while he and Mn, Liddell had been
asleep, and that a considerable quantity of very valuable
jewellery, and • hundred pounds in money, had been
stolen from his own dressing-case, and that a great
deal of similar property had also been taken
from a box belonging to Mrs. Liddell. The police were
called in, and the plaintiff was taken into custody on sus-
picion of being concerned in the robbery, but after under-
ing one or two examinations bears a magistrate he was
discharged, and he then brought the present action to re-
cover damages for what was alleged to be his illegal deten-
tion, under the circumstances. The evidence to support
the counts for libel went to show that a person acquainted
with the plaintiff wrote to Mr. Liddell, informing him that
he had applied to the plaintiff for some money
he owed him, and that he told him he could
not pay him because Mr. Liddell had not paid
him his wages, and inquiring whether this was true, to
which Mr. Liddell wrote in reply that he had discharged
the plaintiff on account of his being implicated in a rob-
bery to a large extent at Raveoeworth Cull*, but that he
had paid him all the wages to which he was entitled.
Mr. James addressed the jury for the defendant in his
usual effective manner, and said that the case he had to lay
before them, on betel( of Mr. Liddell, wee that what
had been done with regard to taking the plaintiff into
custody, was the ea of the police-constable who was called
in, and that, under the circumstances, there was reason-
able and probable cause to justify • suspicion that the
plaintiff was a person concerned in the robbery. He also
urged that the letter which formed the subject of the third
count did not, in point of fact, amount to a libel.
In order to make out this ease, Mr. Liddell himself was
examined as a witness, and also Mr. Thompson, the super-
intendent of the Gateshead police, and his son. Mr. Lid-
dell detailed the circumstances of the robbery, and stated
that the value of the property taken was, altogether, more
than 4001., and it appeared that the person who
committed it must have gone through the bed-
room and passed round the bed where he and
Mrs. Liddell were lying. It also was proved that
about a twelvemonth before while Mr. Adolphus Liddell,
the brother of the defendant, was staying at Raveneworth
Castle, some property was stolen from his bed room in n
similar manner during the night, atd upon that occasion a
butler named Greeulay was discharged, on suspicion of being
concerned in the robbery. In order to justify the proceed-
ing taken against the plaintiff, it was proved that on the
day after the robbery now in question, the plaintiff went to
the police station at Gateshead, and made • statement to
the effect that he was Greenlay, and that he supposed, as
he was suspected of the other robbery, he should be
suspected of this one also, and that if the superintendent
wanted him he was gone to Durham, and they might go
after him if they pleased. It appeared that on the following
day all the servants of the Castle were mustered before the
superintendent of police for the purpose of being ques-
tioned; and upon the plaintiff being recognised as the person
who had made the false statement at the police-station, it
was considered such a suspicions circumstance, that, ac-
cording to the evidence of the officer, he felt himself jus-
tified in taking him at once into custody, upon his ow• au-
thority, and without receiving any directions to that
effect from the defendant. In addition to these facts,
Sergeant Lockirby, one of the detective officers at-
tached to the Metropolitan Police, was called to
prove *hat he was sent to Ravensworth Castle to institute
an enquiry and make an examination of the premises, and
I he said his opinion clearly was that the robbery had not
been committed by regular burglars, but was what is techi-
, cally termed put up," signifying that it must have
I been committed by some person being in the house, and
well acquainted with the premis3s, or by the connivance
and assistance of some person so situated.
The Chief Baron having summed up the jury after deli-
berating a short time returned • verdict for the defendant
upon the two counts, for the malicious prosecution, and upon
the point of reasooehle and proper cause, and upon the
count (or libel they gave a verdict for the plaintiff.—
Damages 51.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LANCASTER, Ara. 9.
Biro's Ka. Joann WiciimsAir.
GAROTTE RODETUAT AT PRESTON.
William Baines wag charged with a felonious attack on
Mr. T. J. HaWall, and with having robbed Ma of 84a.
Xt. Whighas demand to the 'Mishima; ea the

ground that it did not specify the amount of the monies
stolen, and contended that that omission rendered it bad.
Mr Overeud, in reply, said that by the 24th section of
the act in question it was enacted that no indictment should
be considered as bad from the abs, nee of any averment
which was unnecessary to be proved.
His lordship coincided is this opinion, and overruled
the abjection.
The prosecutor, it appeared, was a banker's clerk in
I Preston, end on the 18th of April he was passing down
Deep Vale-road, in that town, when he was attacked by
two men, one of whom garotted him, whilst the other
rifled his pockets. There was sufficient light to enable him
' to identify the prisoner Baines, whose apprehension was
effected under the following singular circumstances:—After
the rubbery, 'Leine' had proceeded to the house of an ac-
quaintance, and changed his trousers and boots, which
were very muddy, and then went 'home. Ho afterwards
sent a man named Fance for these articles of wearing ap-
parel, but the police meeting with the messenger, and cue-
pecting that he had been on some pillaging expedition,
took him into custody. He explained how he had become
in possession of the trousers and boots, and informed the
police where Baines was to be found. He was immediately
tracked, and, on being confronted with the prosecutor, he
was at once recognised, as well es his clothes.
His Lordship said the prisoner had been convicted of a
crime which was becoming much on the increase, and it wes
necessary to make an example. The sentence of the court
was, that he be transported for 10 years.