The Express.
London, England, 1861-11-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(TRW DAY.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
Sittinp in Reno.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie, Sail
Justice, Williams, Bylas, and Keating.)

BRADLAUGH ,r. &MARINA—THE LECTURER AND THE POLICE.
The plaintiff, a lecturer and writer, had been prevented
from delivering a lecture in a field which he had hired by
the defendant, who is the superintendent of police at
Devooport, and subsequently locked up upon a charge of
assault. This charge was investigated and dismissed, and
the plaintiff thereupon brought the action to recover
damages for false imprisonment, and recovered a verdict for
oue farthing. On the that day of term he applied for a
new trial, and the court now gave judgment upon this
motion.

The Lord Chief Justice said that the plaintiff complained
that the judge had not done his duty by controlling the
defendant's counsel, who, the plaintiff contended, went
beyond his authority in reading passages from a publica.
tion, and asking the plaintiff whether he had written them,
after he had declined to answer whether he was the
author of the pampblet,because if he said " Yes" he would
reader h.mself liable to a criminal prosecution. They had
consulted Mr. Baron Cheapen, who tried the came, and he re.
ported that the plaintiff was under misapprehension as to
the come taken at the trial • for after the plaintiff had
refused to answer whether belted written the pamphlet the
questions that followed were, did you write such and such
• latter. These documents might have formed part of the
pamphlet, but there was nothing in the form of the question
to show this. The objection, therefore, failed in point
of fact; but he (the Lord Chief Justice) might say that in
his opinion a judge had the duty contended for by the
plaintiff of controlling a counsel who continued to put in.
proper questions, though it was not at all clear that if a
judge made a mistake in the exercise of his discretion it
would be grounds for a new trial. The second point was
that the learned judge began his address by de-
' ploriog that the plaintiff entertained oortain opinions,and so
prejudicing the jury, though the plaintiff contended that
there was no evidence that he entertained as y particular
opinions. The learned judge reported that what be said
was that however much he and the jury might deplore the
opinions to which allusion has been made, he prayed them
to be guarded against being prejudiced by any such conside-
rations, but to decide acccording to the evidence only.
This being so, it was no ground for a new trial,
but the judge also reported that the counsel for the defendant
himself deplored the opinions referred to, and the judge's
observations were made in reference to this. The thin!
point was that some of the jury would probably have to
contribute to the borough fund, out of which the costs
would be paid, but upon that the plaintiff had no certain
information. The fourth point was that the jury had
given a farthing damages for several hours' imprison.
ment, to swipe from which the plaintiff had been put to
14a. expenses. If the court law that there was
an intentional violation of right on the part of
the jury they would interfere, but otherwise they would be
very scrupulous in interfering with the amount of the
dsmagea. There was nothing to show that the proposition
had been made out in this case. The damages were for the
lury and • plaintiff had no right to demand ex debit°
osetise the amount he had paid to get out of confinement,
or be might have pursued a very expensive course to do r.
He knew not in the least the kind of opinions which the plain.
tiff was Trenton publishing,but of this he was certain, that there
were opinions which were most pernicious, that in law were
crimes, and that every man of sound sense would consider
to be wrong. If the plaintiff wanted to disseminate such
opinions, and the defendant prevented him from doing that
which be would hereafter very deeply regret, the jury
might be of opinion that there was no damage, and that
the substantial result was really beneficial to the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Williams thought theta plaintiff in false impri.
moment has no more right bargains the costa of getting out of
imprisonment; than in so action of assault, a plaintiff could
claim the expenses of employing • 'surgeon to cure his wounds.
Mr. Justice Bytes conceived that by law • man bad a
right to hold any opinions he pleamed,though the publication
of them might lie a crime and he quite agreed that the
dissemination of certain opinions, striking at the root of
society was more pernicious than almost anything else. He
agreed ihat the judge should stop improperquestions being put
to • witness, for otherwise every man who entered a witness
box would be liable to be exposed as in a pillory to
public odium, ridicule, and contempt ; but it was oo ground
for • new trial if the judge omitted to exercise this
discretion.

Mr. Justice Keating considered that it was important that
the jury should be informed as to the opinions of a witness,
so as to judge what amount of credit ho was entitled to.
Rule refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER:

Sitticp in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Baran Mastic, Channel, and Wilds.)