The Express.
London, England, 1861-02-14 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-FEB. 13.

Sittings at Nisi Prima in London.— (Before Lord Chief
Justice Erie and a Common Jury.)
casruir P. WILLIAII3.-3tRETYSHIP.

This was an action to recover damages against the de-
fendant, who had become surety for his brother when he
entered the plaintiff's service as traveller.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. Robinson appeared for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Serjennt Shoe and Mr. Henry James
for the defendant. _ _

The plaintiff was a working jeweller, carrying on an ex-
tensive business, and in May, 1858, he advertised fur a
traveller, and received an answer from the defendant's
brother who was afterwards engaged. On the 4th of
October the defendant entered into a bond by which he
engaged to save harmless the plaintiff from all loss by rea-
son of any mismanagement, misusage, loss, neglect, default,
or procurement of his brother. During the time that the
defendant's brother continued in the plaintiff's service he,
according to the plaintiff's case, made several bad debts,
the loss on this account being between 3001. and 4001. ; and
in addition there was a balance on the settlement of ac-
counts of 18/. or 19/. due to the plaintiff. These sums were
now sought to be recovered, the plaintiff's case being that
the bad debts had been made in such a way as to render the
defendant liable. . . _

Evidencewas Riven on both sides.
She lordship, in summing up, said that in his opinion the
bond referred more to mismanagement than to any mere
error of judgment. Several cases had been referred to in
the course of the trial, but the only one that appeared to
have any reality about it was that of a pereon named Gould-
man, to whom credit bad been given by the traveller for
521. in May and 1101. in October, the greater part of which
sums had been lost in consequence of Gouldman's insolvency.
The question was whether this loss had been incurred
through the traveller's mismanagement.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

SECOND COURT.

Sittings at Nisi Prins, in London. —(Beforo ?dr. Justice Byles
and a Common Jury.)

JON= T. PEARLS. -ESINGULAZ ACTION OP ABISUALT.

The plaintiff in this case was a oow keeper, and in Jan.,
18.59, he took some land at Plaistow of the defendant, who
resides in Wellcloseequare, the rent being 481. a year. A
distress was put in for the first quarter's rent, and at
Michaelmas, 18.59, two quarters more were due, for which
judgment was obtained. The defendant had also a claim
against the plaintiff in respect of acceptancesgiven on amount
of some hay. The present action was brought to recover
damages for an assault and false imprisonment committed
in the course of certain steps taken to arrest the plaintiff
upon an execution issued on the judgment. The defendant
pleaded that the plaintiff had previously assaulted him •
and he also pleaded that he was justified by virtue of the
ea. sa.

Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Pearce appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Prentice and Mr. T. Salter for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff was endeavouring to avoid
being arrested upon the defendant's execution, but, about
nine o'clock on the night of Sunday, the 15th of January,
1860, the defendant. his two sons, and • workman found
the plaintiff in Whitechapel, and followed Lim. It was
raining heavily the best pert of the night. According to
the plaintiff's case they abused him, and followed him so
closely that he could not get away. After some time the
plaintiff promised to give up possession of the land, and they
went into a public-house, where the plaintiff signed a raper
to this effect. The defendant, however, still refused to leave
the plaintiff, and they procersled along to Stritheid church,
and thence to Upton-park, Wcstham, where the plaintiff
implored admission to the lodge. The plaintiff had
before this been roughly treated. The lodge-keeper
maw a struggle in the reed, and said he did not wish to pre-
vent the plaintiff coming in. One of the party., however,
stood at the gate to prevent the plaintiff going in, and ad.
vised the lodge-keeper not to admit him unless it was to
keep him until after midnight so that they could then arrest
him. The parties went away, the same kind of annoyance
continuing until they got into Devon's-lane, Bow, at eleven
o'clock, where the policeman on duty heard a row, and on
going up the defendant's eldest sou charged the plaintiff
with an assault by knocking him down. The plaintiff
said he had committed no assault. The defendant raid that
there was an execution against the Plaintiff in the hands of the
sheriff, and he wished him to be detained until the morning.
The policeman said he had nothing to do with the matter,
and referred the defendant to the magistrates. Afterwards,
however, the plaintiff was taken to the station-house, but
the charge was refused, and the parties left the station.
The seine kind of conduct still continued until the plaintiff
got upon a cab and offered the driver 21. to drive Lim into
Essex. There was a good deal of squabbling and disturb-
ance, and the cabman not knowing what to do between the
parties, drove to the station-house in King David's-lane.
Having been dismissed from that place, they about mid-
night got to the station in Leman-street, where the pleintiff
was charged with an assault, but the inspector refused to
take the charge. When they left the station, there was •
light cart helongiug to the defendant's party, and they
" chucked " the plaintiff into it. This was between I and
2 o'clock a.m. The police were under the impression that
the defendant's party were sheriff's (Accra, and there-
fore they did not interfere. The plaintiff sung
out "murder," and there was one of the party on
each side of him on the bottom of the cart holding
him by the collar. About two a policeman in Leadenhall.
street saw the cart coming along (loin Whitechapel, and
heard the plaintiff shouting "murder." The constable
stopped the cart, and naked what was the matter. The
plaintiff said they were murdering hint The plaintiff was
lying sideways in the cart with his bead on the footboard.
'the defendant was lying across his body, and the defend.
ant's two sons were lying across his legs. The defendant
said they had apprehended him under a sheriff's warrant,
and that he had knocked the sheriff's officer down and
nearly killed him. They said they had had to leave the
officer behind. The policeman suggested their going to the
Bishopsgate police-station, but the police did not know
what to do, and the plaintiff MAX again got into the
cart, and driven up to Frederick.street, Albany-
street, where the sheriff's officer who held the warrant
lived. He was taken in execution and conveyed to Slow-
man's lock-up, where he arrived about four o'clock. He was
there unable to undress himself, and a fellow-prisoner
assisted him to do so. There happened to be • medical
man in the lock-up, and be examined the plaintiff and found
he was much hurt, especially about the neck, shoulders,
and wrists. He thought at first there was a fracture, but
he could not tell because of the swelling. He ordered hot
fomentation. and poultices to keep down the inflanimation.
Some days afterwards he saw him and found an ulcer
had formed in the throat, probably the result of the
violence.

The case for the defendant was that no violence had
been used ; that the plaintiff had at first agreed to go to
the sheriff's officer, but had subsequently refused to go,
and that then they took him. The detail of the evidence
for the defendant was that there uax untruth in a greet
part of the plaintiff's case and ecaggeration in the rest.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff : damages, 1001.