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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

OXFORD CIRCIJI ".—READING, Feb. 25.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr. Justice Keating and a Common Jury.)
KELEY 7. I,AWRENCE 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 defendants.
The plaintiff was named Michael Kelly, and in the em-
ploy of a Mr, Hall, a commission agent, carrying on busi-
ness at Printinghonse -yard, London, and the defendants
were the late sheriffs of London. An action of debt had
been brought in Ireland,and judgment obtained there against
Ignatius W. Kelly. On 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 W. Kelly. The plaintiff told the process
server who served the writ that he 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 Whitecross-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 Mr. 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 1100 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 been 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 ajudgment 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' oificar 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 dis•
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 ho 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
bummons in consequence of the officer's mistake.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £2O.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Pigott.)
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, 1884.
Mr. Lawrence was for the prosecution ; the prisoner was
not defended.

At about dusk on January 28 Mr. Cherry, a magistrate
of this county, was riding along the road from 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 hands, 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 barley 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.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

POST.—The Dano-German war will still con-
tinue, and a Conference of the principal European
Powers may possibly take place. Such is the sub-
stance of the reply given in the House of Commons
last evening by Lord Palmerston to a question put
by Mr. Darby Griffith. For such an announcement
we prepared the public, and those who choose may
welcome it as a confirmation of those prognostica-
tions of peace in which some have seen fit already
to indulge. The Government of this country have,
As the Premier observed, been unremitting in their
endeavours to effect a pacific solution of those dif-
ferences which now array Germany and Denmark
in arms against each other. Until hostilities had
actually commenced they ceaselessly strove to pre-
serve peace by counselling mutual concessions, and,
after blood had been shed, they importuned the
belligerents to consent to an armistice. But the
success which they deserved was denied them, and
each succeeding day saw the breach between Ger.
many and Denmark still further widened and the
peace of Europe will be more seriously jeopardised,
In this extremity one hope was still left to the
English Government. It the belligerents would
not consent to an armistice as preliminary to a Con-
ference, possibly they would have no objection to a
Conference as an accompaniment to a campaign.
If you are obstinately bent on fighting, gratify
your inclination, but meanwhile nominate a few
disengaved diplomatists who will quietly discuss
your dlffsrences round a table in our Foreign-office.
Such was the latest proposal of the English Cabi-
net, and the chief of that Cabinet last evening ad-
mitted his inability to state its probable result.
Austria and Prussia have signified their assent, pro-
vided they are to be permitted to pursue unchecked
their career of invasion, and the latter Power is
said to annex other conditions to her compliance.
On such terms we should have been indeed sur-
prised if the astute statesmen who direct affairs at.
Vienna and Berlin had refused to send their repre-
sentatives to a conference of diplomatists.
" France," said Lord Palmerston, " I believe, will
assent to our proposal, and Russia, I fancy, will
adopt the same course. This language is sanguine,
but it can scarcely be regarded as reassuring. In
speaking, however, of the Danish and Swedish
Cabinets, the Premier frankly acknowledged his
ignorance of the course they would follow, and did
not venture a conjecture as to their possible accept-
ance of the English proposal. Such, then, is the
stage of the Dano-German dispute at which, after
ceaseless negotiation, we have at length arrived.
The war is to be pursued with no leas rancour than
before, and the contest is to be prolonged, though
the attacking and the resisting forces stand to each
other in the ratio of five to one. Whilst, however,
thousands of human lives are being uselessly sacri-
ficed, a Conference may possibly take place, and if
it does an agreement may just as possibly be arrived
at which may satisfy the belligerents and bring
hostilities to a close. In other words, war is a cer•
tainty, and peace a remote contingency.
HERALD.—There is nothing so inconvenient as
law. It interferes with oppression, it checks
vio-
lence, it prevents evil doing, it even sometimes mars
equity and justice. But for all this it is the safe-
guard of the people. The English are a law-reve-
rencing nation, and to maintain this character they
often choose to put up with injury and obstruction.
But they know that there is no medium between
the absolute will of a tyrant and the recognition of
enactments which shall bind every one. It is not
enough to say that such and such a deed, if it be
executed, would be unjust or disagreeable, or a loss
or a calamity, unless at the same time it present the
necessary conditions which are admitted to violate
law. Mere suspicion will not suffice. This is the
ready instrument of tyranny, unsuited to a free
people. It is as well that these plain principles of
legal right should be understood and asserted, even
in our very liberal age; for it is evident that a set
attempt has been made against the very palladium
of English liberty. We are told in unmistakeable
terms, and by strong
facts, that it is justifiable to
seize property, if suspected of being converted to a
use calculated to excite war against us. And when the
Government, who have actually possessed themselves
of the goods, are asked to produce the papers which
may warrant their suspicions and justify their act,
they turn round on the House of Commons and de-
dare that, pending litigation, the people's represen-

.......-------- is
tatives have no right to any such information• t,
other words, that the gronest wrong might b,,eirso
petrated, that ships worth a quarter or ."--eler„
sterling could be detained on suspicion, and all
or
wards seized, at a loss of some £2,000 a rnnhattil ge
more to the owners, and that no legal P"cte,-„-°l-ct
ought to be commenced to legalise this absoin. and
till nearly six months after the first detention,
t,
full four months after the capture of the prOPer ici'
and that all this is to take place on English grtieliel3ert
And against Englishmen of position and cha,r3-mdi
with perfect impunity to the perpetrators, and """tid
on the fiction called Ministerial responsibilit ant to
that the House of Commons is not eoinlo N.,
inquire into the grounds of 80 monstrous 8 Pby
ceeding. We regret that this asseinhil, euv,,e,iged
the very narrow majority of 25, should hay° "iita-
the Government in a course so clearly unOnscety
tienal. The question to be considered Wag.. iv
properly narrowed by Sir Hugh Cairns, in htin" the
urinous series of incontrovertible argulnen„ts,',: Go.
one great point at issue—the conduct ot ww
roe
vernment anterior to the seizure of the Er,11.,.°°10000
and El Monassir. Surely, the House cf "?—.„-;elde
will entirely denude itself of its functions if it GovernJ-,.
its prerogative and right to demand from eat
ment the fullest attainable informations` u nig en,
decidedly illegal and avowedly perprateuoee
.British soil against a British subject. The see'
atilon, of course, does not refer to the gresr,B"„doei.
Thone, but to every shipbuilder in the itait'tede
e Government have proclaimed their right 'ocee.
talih vessels on suspicion. They fling I,teeralo
oard. Their mouthpiece, the
declaresAttorner"-goos-
.h. that they have done so on their own reee-
so ility, and, of course, are willing to abide the iota
sequences—that is, that they have a right to Poo
every shipyard in the country and keep back to be
on
the more suspicion that they are built,
distso
equipped and armed afterwards at sour "NO,
place, for the Confederate American service.
the V
the_
sdetermination of this matter, so far as very
Ton son and Ei Monassir are concerned, i;st lore'
nice question of fact as well as of law; '`,:nd ye
over, is still under judicial investigation'deeitle
ourho absolute Government have presumed to
ooei,
h.it.h law and fact on their own individual Without"s
ai tty. They not only detained the vessels
so
them,
shadow of legal right or authority, hut tll„,elifor
t em, and may actually withhold the tr.- t they
welvemonth from the time of seizure. 'Pad onlY
f have gone into a law court at the expiration .flex 0
our months or six from the date of the tlettit than
throughfhoy any regard for English right or thM
and do not pay the costs; the publicPsrburcle
the injured owners have to sustain the
too
forthe time, depending on a favourable ji.tgeen
But then there is, by way of set-off, tlehritth
comesl to let the vote of Tuesday
atonement of ministerial responsibility. ","10, So
night exPit'veeted
ong as we have laws they ought to be ire7ffeiliet
and observed. Above all, let ns guar" age
to_ecio
allowing the Government to wrest them
ne sot for
for
own crooked views and purpons. Let
again the odious practice of general we are fool°,
toto this we are approaching. If our 1010 oboniu
be be inadequate on calm consideration thej foreign
amended, but not at the dictation of
Government.