The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

The Court of Queen's Bench was oocupied the whole
of the morning with the Crowa-paper, the cases in which
presented no features of sufficient public interest to
justify a detailed report.

The Court of Common Pleas and the Bail Court only
sat a few minutes to dispose of ono or two motions of

course.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
ViTST V. EINICS AND ANOTHIR.

This was an action of detenue brought to recover
damages for the detention of a piece of machinery used
in the manufacture of electric wire. At the trial before
the Lord Chief Baron in the City, it transpired that the
machinery had been seized under a judgment summons,
and sold by auction. The plaintiff becoming the pur-
chaser at 1131., the machinery was erected in concrete
en premises belonging in common to the plaintiff
and defendants; but the judgment summons was.
issued against the latter, and had no reference to
the liabilities of the former. The jury at the
trial returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with 2501. da-
mages, but there was no evidence that he had sustained
other than nominal damages, if even that, and the de_
feadants last term obtained a rule calling upon the plain-
tiff to show cause why a new trial should not be had, on
the ground that the damages were vindictive or exces-
sive.

Air. Bova now appeared to show cause against the
rule, and the learned gentleman contended at some

length that it was quite within the province of the jury
to give heavy damages if they so thought it.

The Chief Baron—Why, it did not appear that the
plaiatiff had sustained damage, even to the ♦alue of a
penny. Besides the machinery was of a heavy and
bulky character, and could not be delivered up at the

time when it was demanded. Hence there was no rea-
son to suppose that it had been wilfully detained.
Where was the special damage, then I

Mr. Bovil still insisted that it was for the jury to de.
cide what extent of damage the plaintiff had sustained,
and the court ought not to disturb the verdict.
Mr. Baron Parke—Do you mean to contend that a
jury can give 2501. damages for the mere detention of a
thing which the plaintiff had got into his possession
again for 1131. t surely such a verdict must be at va-
riance with justice if not with the evidence.
Mr. Bovil answered this objection by putting a sup-
positious case. Suppose a man having taken his passage
to Australia purchases a hut which is unjustly kept
from him at the time he is about to sail, would he not
be entitled to recover special damages !

Mr. Baron Parke—Not unless he declared for it; but
here the declaration is simply detenue.

Mr. Bevil seemed determined to enforce his view of
the case, notwithstanding that the feeling of the court
was manifestly against it; but finding that the objections
of the Court came so thick upon him that he could not
meet them all at once he sat down, expressing some dis-
content that the Court seemed indisposed to hear him.

The Lord Chief Baron regretted that a learned gentle-
man of his standing and ability should have thought it
right to take up the time of the court in a case like this,
where it was clear, beyond all question, that the jury
ought only to have returned merely nominal damages ;
but he still mere regretted that the learned gentleman
should hive fallen into the error of supposing that the
Court was indisposed to hear him.

Mr. Bovil apologised to the Court for the abruptness
with which he had closed his argument, but he certainly
had don• so under the impression—erroneous now it
was quite clear—that the Court Iva.% listening to him
with impatience.

Mr. Baron Alderson and Mr. Baron Martin said it
was quite clear that the damages were excessive if the
verdict was right, because it did not appear by the evi-
dence that the plaintiff had sustained any damage what-
ever, let alone special damage.
The rule for a new trial was accordingly made abso-
lute, the cost of this application to abide the event of the
second trial.