The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE--May 12.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the Lord Chief Justice and
a Common Jury.)
JORDON V. GIBSON.

This was an action brought to recover damages for as-
saulting the plaintiff and giving him into custody. The
defendant pleaded not guilty, and a justification.
The plaintiff in this case is an actor and engaged at the
Lyceum Theatre, and resides in Regent-street. The defen-
dant is a lieutenant-colonel in the artillery, and resides at
No. 60, Pall mall. It appears that the plaintiff, who is an
American, was follow;ng his profession in that country in
the year 1867, when he became acquainted with Mrs. Jor-
dan, then residing with her parents. The plaintiff cohabited
with her until the 14th of February, 1858, when they were
married at Jersey city, New York. They afterwards went
to Boston, where Mrs. Jordon's parents were then residing,
and the plaintiff and his wife stayed with them. In 1861
plaintiff and his wife came to England and resided at Ful-
ham, and afterwards went to live at No. 60, Pall-mall,
where the assault for which this action is brought took
place. The plaintiff removed afterwards with his wife to
Regent-street. The plaintiff obtained an engagement for
himself at the Princess's Theatre, and one for his wife at
nrury -lane, then under the management of Mr. Boucicault.
The plaintiff discovering that his wife had been unfaithful
to him refused to live with her, and they separated. Mrs.
Jordon then went to reside at No. 60, Pall-mall, where the
plaintiff had her watched, and on the 3d of September,
1862, about half-past 11 o'clock at night, he saw Mr.
Boucicault enter the house. Plaintiff soon after followed
him, and whilst talking with his wife in a very excited man-
ner the defendant, who lodged in the house, came in, and
insisted on the plaintiff leaving, but he refused to do so
until he searched the house. He then pushed by the de-
fendant, and insisted on searching his room, ho believing
that Mr. Boucicault was concealed there. The plaintiff
still persisting in making a great disturbance, a policeman
was sent for by the defendant's orders, and ho was given
into custody, and was taken to Vine-street, but was after-
wards allowed to leave, the defendant not pressing the
charge.
The plaintiff, on being called, denied having created any
disturbance or committed an assault such as the defendant
had charged him with having done.
The defendant, on being sworn, stated that he had acted
under the direction of a Mrs. Clark, who was the landlady
of the house, and that he never had any ill-feeling against
the plaintiff, nor did he know of Mr. Boucicault being in
the house at the time of the disturbance,

Mr. Karslake, Q,C., addressed the jury for the defendant.
Sergeant Parry replied.

The learned Judge called the attention of the jury to the
evidence that had been given on both sides, and told them
that without the defendant had clearly substantiated all
the facts contained in the plea which he had put upon the
record then the plaintiff would be entitled to their verdict;
but if they thought that the plaintiff had forced himself
upon that portion of the house occupied by the defendant
or his landlady without their consent then it would be an
unlawful act on his part, and the defendant had a right to
use such force as was necessary in removing the plaintiff
from the premises.
The jury, after having consulted together for some time,
found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £2:5.
Sergeant Parry and Mr. Montagu Williams for the
plaintiff; Mr. Karelake, Q,C., fur the defendant.