The Express.
London, England, 1868-11-06 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittings in Hanoo.—(Belore Lord Chief Justice and
Justices Lush, Hannon, and Hayes.)
The court took the reserved motions of uetv trials.

NC CN V• 20.1.-Cl/810C11 ACTION AGAINST A UAOLEI.

as was • very curious case against e gaoler of e
prison for the county of Devon. The action was tried
before Mr. Justice Hannan at the lest Middlesex eel-
sione, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 251.
Mr. M'lntyre (in the absence of Mr. Huddleston, Q.C.)
moved for a rule nisi calling upon the plaintiff to show
cause why the verdict should not be entered for the defend-
ant on point; reserved by the learned judge. The action
was brought by. Mrs. Moon, a widow, against the keeper
of the Devon County Gaol for false imprisonment. The
defendant pleaded not guilty, and leave awl license, and
that the p:metiff was committed to his care under
• warrant directed to the sheriff of Devon, and
that he was consequently bound to keep her in
custody. ne plaintiff, by her replication, said
she was attached under an order of the Court of
Chancery for not answering • bill that had been filed
against her, and that the gaoler should have known that
by that order if she was not brought to the bar of the
Court of Chancery within thirty days she should have been
discharged lima custody; instead of that she was detained
in custody three or four months. The plaintiff was tenant
for life of a small estate in Devonshire, and upon her cutting
down a few old apple tree* a bill in Chancery was filed
against her, end as she did not put in an answer she was
committed for contempt under the Lord Chancellor's
warrant. Alter being in prison several months she peti-
tom d the Lord Chancellor, who immediately ordered her
release. The first point was that the form of the action
was wrong. Instead of false imprisonment it should have
been of illegally detaining the plaintiff in custody after
the time for her discharge had expired.
Mr. Justice Lush—ls not that tales imprisonment?
Mr. M•lntyre—Not exactly, because she was at first
rightly in custody. There was no intention on the part of
the gaoler to commit a wrong. The detention depended
upon the rule in chancery, of which the sheriff and gaoler
knew nothing.
Mr. Justice Lush—Then the charge against the gaoler
is, that he did not discharge the plaintiff without applica-
tion from his having no knowledge of the rule.
Mr. blintyre—Just so. When she petitioned the Court'
of Chancery it was discovered that she ought to have been
discharged long before. The rule was that sinless • per-
eon so attached was brought the bar in Chancery within
30 days be or she should be discharged, and that if no
answer was filed within eight days after the discharge •
fresh application must be made for another attachment.
The Lord Chief Justice—What is the practice ? Does
the party in custody take the initiative to get out ?
Mr. M'lntyre—The party should apply to be discharged.
The Lord Chief Justice—They appear to be in common
error. The plaintiff says the sheriff ought to have known
that it was lusduty to open the prison doors at the ex-
piration of the thirty days, and say to her "Go oat." On
the other hand the sheriff might say that the person in
custody ought to my to the sheriff, " Let me out."
Mr. M'lntyre said there was no evidence that she asked
to be discharged.
Mr. Justice Hannen said she was continually complain-
at being so lone, detained in prison.
Mr. Justice Lush—ls the velar bound to know the
orders et the Court of Chancery?
Mr. 11•Ii.tyre said he thought not, The learned judge
who tried toe case wee not aware of it until it was brought
tc his notice.

'!he Lord Chief Justice said they were all liinad to know
the common law of the laud, but net the ureters of the
Court of Chancory.
Mr. M'lntyre said L 1.9 second point was !hat the action
bad nut Leen brought within six mouths of the discharge,
Lot three year. afterwards, and thirdly, ru:,t the gaoler
was only a ministerial officer, and hour.el to übry the
sheriff. . .

The Lord Chief Justice said the loomed eounwl might
have a rule on all the points. The court WWI disposed to
crest Lim in every way, as it appeared to bo a very vex-
ations action.

Role granted.

COURT OF COMMON PUPAS.

Sttiare hi lianoo.—(Before the Lord Chief Judie*
lovid and Joeticen Bylee, Keating, and Brett.)

MENEM Or THE Cora?.

The Lord Mid Justice at the sitting of the court eititl—
We have been cuisidering what are the best armugemuuts
to make with rege rd to ap siromrevising barristers ; and
bare determined Gil the following :—The eourte will take
these awash) on Saturday, the 7th ; Monday, 9th; Tues-
day, ; Woduwday, 11th ; and Friday, 13th Nov.;
alio on Tuesday, 17th ; Wednesday, 18th ; and Friday,
20th; and sic the following Tuesday. The court will take
the cans in the order in which they are entered, except
that where several cases involve similar questions
each cases will be taken immediately of ter the earliest case
in the list upon the subject. I may add that we hope to
Le;able to make israngements for the sittings of a second
court, so that gentlemen baying motions to make may dis-
pose of them there. On Saturday week the Court of Cri-
minal Appealwill he sitting, so that the wee cannot take
registration apptule n that day.

TD)II7NDO C. 01

Mr. D. Seymour, Q.C., appeared in this case, which
was au action brought by Mr. Leonard Edmunds, the late
clerk of the II tents, against Mr. Greenwood, Q.C., soli-
citor to the Treasury, to recover damages for alleged libols
contained in three reports mado by the defendant and
Mr. Hindmarch, and- also in a letter. The present
motion came by way of appeal from a decision of Mr.
Baron Martin, who had refused to allow the plaintiff to
exhibit to the defendant certain interrogatories in re-
ference to the publication of the documents in question.
The learned counsel addressed the court at some length,
ai.d Lad not coucleded when our report left.