The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-26 00:00:00

TELLERS.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

OXFORD CI ROUT ..—READING, 1';;b.25.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr. Justice Kea,ing and a Common Jury.)
NELEY V. LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER.
This was an action to recover damages from the de-
fendants for illegal imprisonment by them, through their
officer, of the plaintiff, on a ca. sa. issued against one Ignatius
W. Kelly.
Mr. J. 0. Griffiths and Mr. Harrington were for the plain-
tiff; Mr. Gray, Q.C., for the defandants.
The plaintiff was named Michael Kelly, and in the em-
ploy of a Mr. Hall, a commission agent, carrying on busi-
ness at Printinghouse -yard, London, and the defendants
were the late sheriffs of Loudon. Au action, of debt had
been brought in Irelandond judgment obtained there against
Ignatius W. Kelly. Ou this judgment an action was
brought here, and a writ of summons issued and was served
on the plaintiff in this action, under the impression that he
was Ignatius IV. Kelly. The plaintiff told the process
server who served the writ that ho was not Ignatius Kelly,
and he went to the officer of the attorneys who issued the
writ, but did not see any of them, or afterwards write to
them, and, in fact, took no further notice of the summons,
Judgment was subsequently signed in that action, and ca.
sa. issued against Ignatius W. Kelly, of Printing-house-
yard, commission agent. On the 23d of May last the sheriffs'
officer went to the place of business of Mr. Hall and took
the plaintiff into custody as Ignatius W. Kelly, and took
him to IVhitecross-street. The plaintiff protested that he
was not Ignatius W. Kelly, and when the officer said that
he (the plaintiff) had come from Richmond, denied it; and
Mr. Hall, who was present, also told the officer that the
plaintiff was wrongly arrested. On the 26th of May the
parties appeared before Mr. Baron Martin at chambers, on
a summons which the plaintiff's attorney had taken out, to
show cause why the plaintiff should not be discharged. The
summons was adjourned to give time for a person to come
from Ireland to identify the plaintiff, and on the 29th
of May the plaintiff was discharged. An action was
then brought by the plaintiff for the above illegal im-
prisonment, and damages were claimed for his detention
in prison for six days, and the cost of the attorney who
was employed to get his discharge, and for the loss of
his situation with 11r. Hall, who, it seems, though he be-
lieved it was an illegal arrest, discharged him on the 25th
of May and refused to take him back again. The plaintiff
considered his situation at Mr. Hall's worth about £lOO a
year in all, and since his discharge had only been occasion-
ally employed by that person, and not made more than £lO
by him. Mr. Hall stated that he knew the arrest to be a
mistake, but that he found after the plaintiff had be.n taken
away that he could get on well enough without him, and
that partly for the latter reason he would not take him back.
The case came down for trial here at the last assizes before
Mr. Baron Martin, but that learned Judge ruled in effect
that as the plaintiff had been served with the writ of sum-
_

mons as Ignatius W. Kelly, and had not appeared to that
writ, or procured it to be set aside, a plea of the defendants
justifying the taking of the plaintiff under a valid ca. sa.
on a judgment in that action had been proved, and a ver-
dict was found for the defendants. A bill of exceptions to
this ruling was tendered by the plaintiff, and the Court in
Error thought the ruling incorrect and a venire de novo was
awarded.

Mr. Gray, for the defendants, now urged in mitigation of
damages that the sheriffs' offic3r was not to blame, because
the writ bore the direction it did; that the plaintiff ought
to have set aside the writ of summons; and that the dii.
missal of the plaintiff was not a bona-fide dismissal in con-
sequence of the arrest, but introduced in this case to swell
the damages.

The learned Judge summed up, and said that there was
no obligation on the plaintiff to set the sheriffs' officer right
so long as he did nothing t o mislead him ; the sheriffs'
officer must take care and serve the proper person ; nor
could the onus be thrown upon him of setting aside the
summons in consequence of the officer's mistake.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £2O.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Pigo' t.)
Robert Smith was indicted for feloniously and maliciously
setting fire to a rick of barley, the property of John Porter, at
Sheen, on the 28th of January, 1864.

Mr. Lawrence was for the prosecution ; the prisoner was
not defended.

At about dusk on January 2S Mr. Cherry, a magistrate
of this county, was riding along the road frcm Newbury to
Hungerford. By the side of the road, separated from it by
a bank, stood a nine-acres barley rick of Mr. Porter, and
when about 300 yards from it, Mr. Cherry saw a light in
the centre of the rick, about the size of his two hande, and
breast-high distance from the ground. When he got close
to the front of the rick he saw the prisoner and spoke to
him. The prisoner appeared to be passing the rick, and it
was impossible to have seen him before if he had been going
along the road. Mr. Cherry insisted upon his going with
him to a publichouse near there to get assistance. Two boys
had seen a man earlier in the day lying under the rick, but
could not tell whether the prisoner was the man. Another
witness saw a man lying there, and described him as a spare
man, dressed in a dark jacket like the prisoner's. The pri •
soner's jacket was taken from him at the publichouse some
time afterwards, and bailey heads found upon it. No ono
else had been seen near the spot A policeman found a
lucifer-match box on the read on the Newbury side of the
rick, and prisoner stated to a policeman on the road to gaol
that if Mr. Cherry had not come up and obliged him to
throw away his box of matches he had intended to set fire
to three other ricks. He conducted himself at the trial with
great levity, but denied that he set the rick on fire.
After the learned Baron had summed up, the jury found
the prisoner guilty, and his lordship sentenced him to four
years' penal servitude.