The Express.
London, England, 1866-05-11 00:00:00

MAID fntdltgtsut•

COURT OF COMMON rarlt&-MAT 10.

- -
Sittings at Ni*
_Pelitit, Middleeex.Aßeldee Mr. Jostles
and a Special Jun.
1130111 Zr C. Mar
•
After our report left yesterday,
The plaintiff, in oross-examinadon, sientinned—The
form of his dismissal was that he was removed from the
effestive list. He received hie pension of 1911. 10s., but if
he had remained in the service for a fortnight or three
weeks longer he would have be entitled to • major's
pension of 2911.
Some depositions taken in India and also • gnat deel
of documentary ervidenoe was put in, and this completed
the plaintiff 's case.
Mr. Bovill submitted that there was no evidence to go to
the jury. The original erred took place on the 22nd of
January, 1858, in consequence of the plaintiff refusing to
answer before the court of inquiry but this arrest was by
order of Major Phayre, the commissioner. Beeides, this
imprisonment was not complained of in the declaration, the
first complaint beingas to the arrest which took place onthe
12th of July, 1859. This arresttook place in Calcutta, and
was by order of tire government, conveyed to Brigadier
Smith. The plaintiff complained of the place in which he
wasconfined during this erred ; but it was the ggovernment
of India that provided the place for the confinement of
military prisoners. The plaintiff also complained of hay.
ing been confined in Calcutta from the 12th July to the 3rd
October, and of having been then taken in the Baltic to
Rangoon. This also was proved to have taken plans
the express orders of the government. The co-
vernment sent orders to General Bell to detain the plain-
tiff and bring him to court-martial, and General Ben wee
bound to obey.
Mr. Justice Wiles—And the government ratified what
was done at Rangoon.
Mr. Bovill—The plaintiff next said that he was released
on the 9th November in order that he might be taken on
civil proems. But surely the release was no ground of
action ; and besides, what was done was reported to go-
vernment, end approved by the Commaader-an.Chief. The
second count in the declaration alleged that the defendant
had falsely and maliciously, and without reasonable and
ir:ibneab!e cause, charged the plaintiff with having left
Rangoon without proper authority, and thus procured
his imprisonment.
Mr. Justice Willer said he did not see that there was
any evidence that General Bell had acted maliciously, or
without probable cause.
Mr. Bovill—The only remaining count charged the de-
fendant with publishing a libel, by staling " that Captain
Beighley left Rangoon without my permission, and eon-
trary to my order that required his presence there ;" but
it had been proved that this statement was perfectly true,
and that it was General Bell's duty to make it ; and there-
fore it was no libel. He (Mr. Bovill) also submitted in re-
ference to the whole of the declaration, that if there were
any pound of complaint, it should have been made to the
military authorities, and not brought before a civil court
and further, that, by the Articles of War, no action could
be brought after the lapse of six months.
Mr. Mennen, on the other side, submitted that there was
evidence fur the jury that Major-General Bell had been
actuated by some *Muter motive in what he did ; and fur-
ther, that the plaintiff wee entitled to redress for having
been detained in prison at Rangoon for a month without
charge, when the Mutiny Act said that he was to have •
court-martial within eight days. It was quite plain that
Major-General Bell was master of the wteurroceedim
because he dismissed the plaintiff from , in
that he might be arrested upon civil process.
Mr. Justice Willes said that that was the weakest part
of the defendant's case, because it was against a our
opinions that criminal proceedings should be used in any
way in aid of civil process.
Mr. Mennen further submitted that Major-General Bell
was under no military compulsion in writing the libel,
and that it being a perfectly voluntary communication he
was liable for it.
Mr. Justice Wines decided all the points but one in
favour of the defendant. As to the question whether
Major-General Bell had acted from any sinister motive
he should prefer that the jury should decide it, though he
himself was of opinion that there was no such evidence.
Mr. Bovill said that on motives of public policy he
should prefer to take his lordship's opinion.
Mr. Justice Wilke said that as the other judges were at
Westminster, he should prefer to consult them before
deciding, and having done so, he again expressed his regret
that the case was not to go to the jury, but said that,
having been called on to give his opinion, he must say that
he thought that there were no facts;proved which would in
law sustain a verdict for the plaintiff.
A nonsuit was accordingly entered.