The Express.
London, England, 1866-02-06 00:00:00

COURT OF XXCHEQI7EL-Fm S.

Sittings at Mal Prtnr.—(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and
a Common Jary.)
POLLASTILDD AND WM V. DHOW.

This was an action for a malicious prosecution. The
defendant pleaded not guilty, sad that he had reasonable
and probable cause for living the plaintiff into custody.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. Hence appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Hoddleston, Q. 0., and Mr. Pritchard
for the defendant.
The male plaintiff was a jeweller, residing in the neigh-
bourhood of the Hackney-road, who travelled about the
country in the prosecution of his business and the defen-
dant was a pawnbroker at Newport in Monmouthshire.
The plaintiff's ease was this. In September, 1864, Mr. and
Mrs. Pollastrini ware at Newport, and being in want of some
ready money M re.Pollastrini weat to the defendant's shop fn
the purpose of pledging a gold Geneva wank, • gold chain,
a pair of earrings and a brooch. The defendant examined
the articles and advanced 51. upon them. The plaintiffs
heard nothing more of the matter until July, 1865, when a
detective officer from Newport, accompanied by Miss
Druiff, called at their house and took 3ln. Pollastrini into
custody on a charge of conspiring with others to defraud
the defendant, by moreeentieg the articles as gold when
they were really made of an inferior metal. She was looked
up all night in a station-house, and brought up in the
worsting at Clerkenwell Police-court, and subsequently
taken, along with a man charged with theft, to Newport.
Here the case was heard by the local magistrates, who
ultimr tely dismissed her, but not before she had endured
two more days' imprisonment.
Mrs. Pollastrini, who said she resided in Nicholl-square,
Hackney-road, admitted is cross-examination, that she
pledged the articles in questioa with the defen-
dant in the name of Sarah Mortimer, and that she had
pledged similar goods with other pawnbrokers at Newport,
SWUM, Cardiff, Bath, and other Owe in the West of
England. •
Mr. Pollastrini, who described himself •as a diamond
merchant, showed much indignation when asked in cross-
examine:loll as to his avocations and his busiseas relation
with three other men named Brown, Alexander, sad
Debarovitch, who, it was represented, were in the habit of
travelling with him and his wife.
In reply to the learned judge he said the value of the
articles pledged with the defendant to the trade was about
41. 10s., but they might be sold for 51., 6/., or 71.
A jeweller at Newport said'he had tested the articles with
aqua fortis, bat not assayed them. The watch was 18
carat gold, and was worth 35.. or 38a. He valued the
I whole of the articles at 3/. 10s. The chain and appendages
were of 8 carat gold. The brooch and earrings were of
more inferior gold. He would not have given 51. for the
whole of the articles.
The defence was, that the defendant did not take the
initiative in the proncetion of Mrs. Pollastrini. bat was
informed by Mr. Celli', inspector of police at Newport,
that a commercial traveller had purchased one of hie pawn-
tickets, and that on redeeming the articles he found
them almost win-thins. The defendant thereupon exa-
mined the goods which had been pledged with
him by Mrs. Pollsatrini, by her husband, and by
Alexander, and by Brown, and found they were not of the
quality of gold they were represented to be, some of them
turning green and others brown on the acid test being ap-
plied. He requested the inspector to make inquiries about
the parties, in order that they might be brought to justice,
and at length an information was sworn, and a warrant ob-
tained for their apprehension. The charge of conspiracy
wag preferred against them at Newport, but all were dis-
missed, except Brown, who was committed for trial, and
although the grand jury found a true bill against him, he was
not tried. Alexander obtained from the defendant
an advance of 11. 10a for an Albert chain, which
beingoh sold at • public auction, when the
twelve months bed expired. brought cooly 2a. Brown
got two guineas for a pencil can and ring, which was
knocked down for 15a. ; and also 21. 121. for a chain, ring,
and snuff-box, which sold for 1/. la ; and the watch, chats,
brooch, and earrings for which his. Pollaatrisi received 5/.,
went for 30a. It appeared that some of the tickets had
been sold to different parties for 10s. and 15e. each.
Miss Druiff deposed that on the 10th September last year
Mrs. Pollastrini and Brown came into her father's shop in
the garb of naval officers, and maid they belonged to her
Majesty's ship Wens, which was then in the roads.
I Brown, who gave the name of Jonas, sand her to give
21- 10a. upon a chain and pencil can, and she refused.
i Pollastrim thee produced a snuff-box, and said he would let
that go with them, though he would not take 101. for it, as
it had been given to him by a young lady for saving her
life. She thereupon lent the sum asked. The witness
added that when Mrs. Pollastrini pledged the articles in
question, she said they were yore gold, and represented
herself as the wife of a naval etwain.
After some other evidence had been given,
The learned Judge, in summing up, said the jury had to
consider whether the plaintiff was prosecuted by the dein-
" dant without reasonable and probable cause, and mall.
clonal!. If all the plaintiff did was to pretreat the articles
tto Miss Druiff, and ask for 51., leaving her to form an
, opinion on their vales, there was an absence of reusable
' and probable canoe, and the plaintiffs were entitled to a
verdict , but if they thought she represented them as pure
gold, that was 'false representation, and their verdict
; ought to be for the defendant.
' The jury immediately found a verdict for the defendant.
In reply to Mr. Baron Bramwell they arid they found
there was no malice.

'LAMY n LORD HUNTINGTOWID;
This was an action for false imonsoament. The defen-
dant plsadetl not guilty, and a justificative.