The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-03 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 3, 1851.

trustworthiness of a party in Chesterfield, with whom they
used to share the proceeds of the goods obtained. I have
written several letters to this effect by their desire."
Mr. Munk said he had still a mass of evidence, of a varied
nature; but he thought, frow what he had already adduced,
that he ought not to trouble the court with it, and he would
leave the case for the prosecution in the hands of the jury
as it stood.
The elder prisoner Russell addressed the jury at some
length, to the purport that he was mtrely agent fur Orford
and sun; he went through the allegations seriatim, putting
his torn construction 1,11 the transactions, and contending
that be had no knowledge of their insolvency.
Young Russell, in his def, :WC, said he was a regular
commission agent, but hail nothing to do with the concern
beyond selling the goad, at ap, r tentage. Ile complained
chit he had been lett without the means of defence, as he
had parted with all his ready money 01 assist his brother at
al Ashton wader the promise that when he (the brother) got
out on bail, he would ret urn the money to the prisoner ;
but in-tead of that, he had not only sold oil' all his (pri-
soner's) goods, but taken away his wife, and left the

country.
Thelearned judge summed on at considerable length,
directing the jury that it Iva% not essential that every minute
allegation of the indietment should he made out; it eras
gaitUldllitpcireonyte,lhblthath„e• tot". 11,1. Poet.M
without the intention of paying for th,m.
The jury delihe r it .d fur u few tnutuents, and returned
verdict of Grtiffy Jgain.t all the prisoners.
Judgment th fermi.

NORTH WALES CIRCUIT.—CHESTER, APRIL 1.
Civic. Mus--Inear. Ma. Attire MAI: LC.
ACTION AGAINST THE RILLEENHEAII, LAN( AMUR!, AND
Catexutan JuNerias RAILWAY COMPANY.
The plaintiff was Henry M 0.., and the defendants the
Birkenhead, Lanevelaire, and Cheshire Railway Company.
The action was in trespass to recover compensation in
damages for false imprisonment. The deleudants pleaded
the general issue.
Mr. Chilton stated the caw•. The plaintiff was Mr. Henry
Rot, a goldsmith and jeweller, in Liverpool, and when
he stated that defendants were a railway company, they
would understand at once that he was fighting at very.
very powerful odds. because railway compaulea, if they had
not pockets, had a most illimit able quantity of mousy, fur
they
had th`pawsr to make calls, and the consequence was
the i,wt- nil rietlort were more wflthiwg ; but M.
trusted the jury, by their verdict, would teach that com-
pany. and all other railway companies, unless the liberty of
the subject was the merest farm in the world. that they
were not allowed to take people into custody and drag them
through the streets to prison, at their ow a sovereign will
and pleasure, the individual lwing in no fault whatever. In
the mouth of July, lfll9, advertisements appeared an-
nouncing what was called an ext.:mime train from Liverpool
to Bangor. The plaintiff. having his father-in-law on a visit
to his house, was induced to crosa over with him to Birken-
head, for the purpose of going by the eveursion train to
Bangor. At the station at Birkenhead they inquired at
whis•h time they could remelt from hangar, and were told
that they could do sic by the half-met 7 train. They re-
turned by that train, but on reaching the station at Chester
they were told that they must pay hats ascrown each mom
than they had :already paid. 'they remonstrated and told
the party what had been said to them at the Birkenhead
station. The railway authoriti s, however, refused to per-
mit them to proceed, and they wen• given into custody sad
taken to the police station, but the officer there advised hem
to pay the navy under protest, which the y did; but they
had then been detained nearly two hours, and then they
were unable to reach Liverpool that night. This would of
cones.: cause considerable ,nxitty to the wife of the plaintiff.
The learned gentleman then read several letters addressed
to the secretary of the railway company by the attorney
for the plaintiff, attempting to effect an arrangement, haat
which ended in the offer of the return of the two half-
crowns.
The witnesses haring been examined,
II it Lordship said the plaintiff was imprisoned under cir-
cumstances which could not be justified ; unit, if the jury
were of opinion that it was done by the servants of the de-
fendants, they must pay for it. 'they (defendants) hail 110 t
once, in their letters to the plaintiff's attorney, denied that
the y committed the trespass, which was singular. The
ury would, if they thought this was done by any of the de-
fewlants' servants, say what amount of reasonable damages
he was entitled to. It was certainly not II pleasant thing for
a person to be told he must go to the• palice statiou wheat he
was not bound to go there at all.
The jury, after consulting together for ten minutes, re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff —damages, Ufit.