The Express.
London, England, 1860-12-13 00:00:00

COURT OF EXoHll9l7Flit.rDsc. 12.

Mir M 2fli Prior, at Oudahall..--(Before the Lord
Met Baron mid Special Jury.)
MMVILLB r. LOADMAN.—ALLIORD MALICIOUS PROSICUTION.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Como Ne-
ville, to recover damages from the defendant, Robert MU-
wor Loadmen, fora malicious prosecution in giving the plain-
tiff into custody. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and
that he bad reasonable and probable canoe for supposing
tilt the plaintiff was about to quit this country.
The Belentor.Gerveral and Yr. Charles Pollock were cotin•
sal fur the plaintiff ; Yr. Huddleaton, Yr. Macnamara, and
amether learned gentleman represented the defendant.
It appeared from the case opened for the plaintiff, and
afterwards proved by his own evidence and that of other
witeseses, that he re a gentleman of property, who formerly
resided at Oakbrook, mar lianunarinsith, where the de-
feadaat has for thirty-two years carried on business as a
serge:" and general practitioner. nie defendant attended
the plaintiff and his family as medical man between the
years 11155 and 1858, sending in his accounts yearly.
The plaintiff, however, stated that he bad may
received the acconnte in gross, and not the
items. Huheequently the plaintiff celled in another
medical man, and for two years afterwards the de.
fendant's account remained unliquideted, although frequent
applications were made for its payment. The corm:poe-
ticisee put in showed that the plaintiff had promised pay-
meet of the defendant'. account. The defendant's attorney
wrote to the plaintiff demanding payment, sod not re-
ceiving it the defendant went to some wise°.
at Hammersmith and made inquiries whether the
plaintiff was not about to leave the country.
On the information which he received from
them be went before a judge at chambers, sad
ea his own affidavit and that of other he obtained a espies,
under the Ist and 2nd Vio., e. 110, and bad the plaintiff
arrested, on the ground that he was going to reside out of
the jurisdiction of the omit. Th. plaintiff was obliged to
give bail, and had then brought this action for a malicious
prosecution, the defentLot having brought an adieu for debt
in the Court of Queen's Bench against him to recover
621. 14.. ad.. the amount claimed for medical attendance.
/Ir. Robert Emmett. a partner in the firm of Mows.
Emmett, the plaintiff's attorney, deposed that be eaw
the plaintiff ia the custody of the sheriff's Mikan on the
27th of August lank whoa he egad them to allow the
plaintiff to rowels in custody in his case ;lint they reneged,
sad took him to Chaneery-lane.
The load Chief Baron—That is a proof of incivility on
the part of the °Moen of the sheriff. It was very wrong
on their put.
Witness— They took the plaintiff in custody to Blownian's
spongielphome, in Chancery lane.
The Lord Chief Baron--That was great misconduct on
the part of the officers of the sheriff.
The Solicitor. General-1 suppose some fee is payable
before a person can get out of a sponging.house.
Witnem—Yea, be must pay a guinea fur the use of the
room.
Yr. Jasper Wheeler. a butcher at Hammersmith, was
called to prove that the defendant had called upon him,
and bad inquired if the plaintiff was not going to reside
abroad. Witnees replied that he had heard so, and in the
course of convemation be told the defendant that the
plaintiff had paid his amount for butcher's meat, and did
not then owe him much.

The Lord Chief Baron—l suppose that was to show that
the plaintiff wasted more meat than medicine. (Laughter.)
Mr. J. R. Eden, • plumber, at Hammersmith, pee evi-
dence of a similarcharaeter, the object being to show that
the witnesses had not stated mitten sworn to in the de-
fandast's affidavit, op which the eapias was obtained.
The Lord Clue( Baron suggested that some engagement
should be come to. It was quite clear that the action
brought by the present defeodant against the prompt
plaintiff must, after tho letters which bad been read, be
really undefesded.
Counsel having consulted were unable to come to any
arraugement, and the case closed.
Mr. Huddlestoo submitted there was no ease to go to
the fury, all there was no proof of malicious prosecution.
The Lord Chief Baron mid it appeared to him there was
so malice proved against the defendant, who, in his appli-
cations for payment, bad shown that be was disposed totrsat
the gentleman who now sued him with the greatest for-
bearance. He thought the defendant had removable and
probable muse for causing the plaintiff to be arrested,
although he might have committed a Wunder.
The Solicitor-General submitted there was a case for the
jury, and the court then adjourned for • few minutes, hie
lordship again expressing a bope that the awe would be
settled without the intervention of the jury.
On the reassembling of the court,
The cam for the defendant was proceeded with, and he
was called to prove that he acted from no malicious motives
is combs' the arrest of the plaintiff, but on the informatics
which he had received that Mr. Neville was about to leave
the country.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
The Lord Chief Baron remarked that the defendant left
tie court without the slightest imputation on his oharacter.