The Express.
London, England, 1868-02-04 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEA/3,-FEB. 3.

Sittiniaatiii;iPriur in liaddlearx.—(Before Lord Chid
Justioe Bovill and a Special Jury.)

MIJIMIT e. THZ SOUTH ZASTIRif RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover damages for false impri-
sonment, and the defendants pleaded, in addition to not
guilty, that some goods had been stolen from them, and
that they had reasonable ground for believing that the
plaintiff had stolen them, or that he had received them
knowing them to have been stolen.
Mr. Dlgby Seymour, Q.C., Mr. Luton, and Mr. Kemp
appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. O'Malley, Q.C. Mr.
Serjeant Ballantine, and Kr. Thesiger for the defendsinta.
The plaintiff was a soap manufacturer ; his factory was
in the Great Dover-road, and he had some stores at 'Wel-
, worth. On the 24th July last • person named Cerise,
whom the plaintiff had been in the habit of meeting, bat
did not know much of, asked him if he would buy some
railway grease, of which he produced a sample. •
day or two after the plaintiff, Carter. and Newman,
his principal, met at • publio-house, and the plaintiff
give 10s. per cwt. for two make of pro-
skied his to
his foreman, Burke, should think that the bulkgrease, was
equal to sample. The casks were sent to the factory,
where Burke said that one cask was equal to sample, and
the other was not, and therefore it was agreed that as to
this one there should be a reduction of 2s. per cwt. in
the price. Burke sent the casks to the store,
and on the following Sunday, when the plaintiff
went there to look at his horses, he saw the
cults for the first time, The casks were iron-bound, and
the top had been fastened on by • binge and a lock. There
also had been a small portion of one of the staves cut out,
to destroy, it was now suggested, the company's brand.
The plaintiff weld not say how many of these circum-
stances he noticed, bet be had his suspicions that all was
not right, and he celled in • neighbour, who agreed with
him. The two wen:: in a cab and found Carter, who
assured them that it was all right ; but, not being
satisfied, they went at once to the polioe-station, and
themselves gave the :iret information oft he matter to the
police. On the following day Sergeant Holmes caused
Carter, Newman (who was a porter in the 'company's ser-
vice), and Turner, a carman, who had carried the grease,
to be arrested. At the police-station the plaintiff was
charged by Holmes with having unlawful poseession of the
grease ; but the inspector let him out on bail, and the ma-
gistrate afterwards discharged him.
A good deal of evidence was given to prove these various
facts, and also to show that the plaintiff had given as
much for the grease as it was worth for his purpose.
The principal question in the canoe, however, was
whether Holmes had acted as the company's agent, so as
to bind them by his acts. Holmes was a metropolitan
police officer ; he received him pay at the Stone's-end sta-
tion, but he was employed by the company at their station
at London-bridge as a detective sergeant, and was
entirely under their control. They repaid his wages
to the police receiver, and they allowed him W. a
year in lien of clothes. It appeared that no one but a
pollee-constable could, without a warrant, charge a moon
with having unlawful possession of property. The
police inspector dated that Holmes' amid that he gave
the charge on his own behalf as • metropolitan police-
man, but it appeared that on • previous occasion, when
the inspector gave evidence in this cause, he stated that
Holmes did not say on whose behalf be made the charge.
In explanation of this, the inspector said that there were
two charges men—one receiving, knowing the grease
to be stolen ; and the other unlawful posseesion. He
understood the first charge to be made on behalf of
the company, and the second by Holmes on his own
befall. It was on the first charge being refused that the
second was made, and on the previous occasion ho was
, asked only about the first charge.
Mr. O'Malley, at the conclusion of the evidence for the
phintiff, eubluitted that there was no evidence to fix the
defendants.

The Lord Chief Justice, however, said that be should
kayo the matter to the jury.
Mr. O'Malley thereupon said that ho should leave the
oars where it was, and call no witnesses for the defence.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the first question was
whether Holmes, in giving the plaintiff in charge, acted
on Whiff of the defendants. If the jury should think
that he did, they would then consider what was stated in
the spechd pleas in justification. The principal circum-
stances alleged were that the plaintiff was in possession of
stolen property ; that he slid not satisfactorily account for
such possession ; that he had purchased it of a person
whose name and residence he did not koow ; that be took',
an unsatisfactory receipt for the purchase-money ; and
that when asked to find the persons he had purchased of
he took the police in another direction. It was the duty
of the jury to say whether these statements were proved
to their satisfaction ; but he directed them, ea a matter of
law, that if they were so proved they furnished reasonable
and probable cause for suspecting the plaintiff.
The jury, after considering the matter for some time,
found a verdict for the defendants.