The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-08 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII.—Nov. G.

- - -
TIIE BARONESS VON BECK'S CASE.-CONSTANT DERRA DE
MARODA v GEORGE DAWSON AND OTHERS.--RULE NISI

FOR A NEW TRIAL. P
It will be recollected that this action was tried at the
last assizes at Warwick before Mr. Baron Alderson, and
that a nonsuit was entered, under the direction of the
judge, the learned Baron being of opinion that the evi-
dence against the defendants was insufficient.
Mr. Serjeant Miller now applied to the court for a rule
to show cause why the nonsuit should not be set aside
and a new trial had. The learned gentleman went at
great length through the facts proved at the trial, which
have already appeared in the Daily News, showing the
position of the Baroness von Beck in this country, and
the manner in which she became acquainted with the
plaintiff. He ;then explained the circumstances under
which M. Derra, de Maroda and the Baroness were
introduced to the four defendants, and went on to state
that, from representations made to him, Mr. Dawson,
became one of the subscribers to a new work by the
baroness, then about to be published, giving an account
of her adventures in connexion witk the movement of
Kossuth and his party in Hungary, and that he paid the
amount of his subscription 11. 4s. Subsequently Mr.
Dawson and the other defendants suspected the baroness
was not the party she represented herself to be, and
acting on that suspicion, they severally made depositions
before a magistrate in Birmingham, in consequence of
which (as the plaintiff alleges), malicious prosecution he
and the baroness were taken from the house of one of
the defendants, and locked up in a ststion-house all night,
in order to be carried before the magistrate next morn-
ing, With the unhappy death of Madame Ton Back
the public already acquainted. When the plaintiff
was placed before the magistrate, the four defendants
were present, and counsel appeared and made a long
statement against Monsieur Derra do Maroda, charg-
ing him with fraudulent misrepresentation, whereby
the defendant Dawson was defrauded of the sum of
11. 4s. The charge was however dismissed, whereupon
an action for malicious prosecution was brought by the
plaintiff, and tried at Warwick, as before mentioned. At
the trial the warrant by virtue of which the plaintiff was
taken into custody was not produced; but th© depositions
of the defendant upon which it was asserted a warrant
was obtained, were before the Court. Tho manner in
which these depositions were framed was so informal,
that upon that ground, coupled with the non-production
of the warrant Mr. Baron Alderson directed a nonsuit,
considering there was not sufficient evidence to show
that the defendant had sot the police court in motion.
Mr Serjeant Miller, however, contended that, notwith-
standing the informality of the proceedings, there was
sufficient to connect the defendants with the imprison-
ment which the plaintiff had suffered. He cited " Elsey
v. Smith" (1 Dow. and Ity., 97) in support.
Rule nisi granted.

BAIL COURT.—Nov. 6.
THE QUEEN v. THE JUDGE OF A COUNTY COURT.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. Hawkins applied on behalf of a defendant in a cai
that came before too judge of a County Court. for a rule
to show cause why a criminal information should not be
filed against the said judge for refusing to hoar the evi-
dence of the defendant in a cause which was tried in a
County Court. It appeared that on the 2d Juno last a
summons was ism(' by the judge against the present
applicant and his wife, for the sum of 11/. 93. Id., the
amount of a promissory note. The defendant appeared
to prove that the promissory note wits made atter his
marriage with his wife, and that therefore this action
was erongly brought. The judge refused to hear this
evidence, and made an order that the money should be
paid by two instalments, one on the 12th of June, and
the other on the 12th of July. The first instalment was
not paid, and before the second was duo an applicatio❑
was made in the Common Pleas to the Lord Chief Jus-
tice for a summons calling upon the parties to show
cause why a prohibition should not issue on the ground
that the proceedings were irregular. On the 30th of
June, before Mr. Justice Maule, the plaintiff undertook
to strike out the name of the defendant's wife, and
the defendant then consented to allow the order for the
payment of the money to stand as against him. The in-
stalments were not paid, and a summons was issued nu-
der the 98th section of the act, calling on the defendant
to attend and give a true account of his estate and effects.
and to say if he could pay or not, or when he could pay.
On attending upon this summons he was put into the
defendant's box, and took an oath to answer truly all the
questions which should bo put to him under the act.
He was questioned as to whether he could then pay,
and stated that he could not. Ho was going on to explain
why he could not do so, when he was interrupted by the
judge, who said that ho knew by his appearance and man-
ner that he could pay, and then he asked a female, who
represented herself as the wife of the plaintiff (who was
not iu court), whether she would have a commitment,
The defendant did not catch her answer, but the judge
said that the defendant should be committed to prison
for one month, and that he should not leave the court.
Mr. Justice Compton asked if Mr. Hawkins could
show anything like corruption or bad motive?
Mr. Hawkins begged to submit that the judge having
summoned the defendant before him to show cause why
he should not be committed to prison, was bound to hear
the defendant explain why he had not paid the money,
which explanation he (the judge) had refused to hear.
Mr. Justice Crompton said they must not file criminal
informations against the County Court judges to bring
business to the higher courts. He would look at the
affidavits.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Nov. a,
GRIFFITHS V. L'ESPINASSE AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiff in this case is a girl named Griffiths, 15
years of age, and by her next friend she sued the de-
fendants, as superiors of the Convent of Our Lady at
Norwood, to recover damages in consequence of the loss
of her eye, and also for general injuries to her health,
alleged to have been occasioned by the ill-treatment,
carelessness, and neglect of the defendants, to whose
care she had been intrusted. The trial, it will be remem-
bered, took place at the last Surrey Assizes, whon the
jury found a verdict for the defendants.
Mr. Montage Chambers, Q.C., now appeared on the
part of the plaintiff to move for a rule, calling upon the
defendants to show cause why this verdict should not
be set aside, and a now trial had upon the grounds—.
first, that Chief Justice Jervis, who presided at the trial,
had misdirected the jury; and, secondly, that the verdict
was not warranted by the evidence. The declaration
charged that the defendants being superiors of the con-
vent undertook the care of this child, but in broach of
their duty they had overworked her, and set her tasks
injurious to her health, and thus caused the injuries aho
had sustained! The defendants pleaded not guilty, and
also another plea traversing some allegations as to the
mismanagement of the institution. In the year 1849 the
plaintiff was placed by Cardinal Wiseman in this convent,
and she continued there until January, 1852. When she
went there she was in ill health, having just recovered
from a fever, and being of a scrofulous habit. Until
August, 1851, she was treated like the other children,
and nothing particular occurred, but in that month she
became seriously ill, and the medical attendant of the
place, Mr.
Chapman, was consulted about her, but she
did not get better. Her only known relative was an
aunt, and to her no communication was made of the
state of the child until January, 1852, when she was
acquainted with her illness, and took her to Dr. Alex- ,
ander. At this period she had lost the sight of one of
her eyes, but after being under the ea 70 of Dr. Alex-',
ander for three or four weeks, she got better, and the
sight of the other eye was preserved. To enable the
court to understand the case it might be necessary to
state that two classes of children wore received into
the institution—one class called boarders, who paid 301.
a-year each ; and the other the orphanage class, for
whom 121. each was paid, if their friends could afford
it, and, if they could not afford it, nothing at all was
paid. The learned counsel then referred to the early
their lordship;' ..hours of the establishment and the bad quality of the
food -, but he said that, as there was a cot,flict of evi-
tnadedence
in thin
eatnupeo.n,lh3e!e points, he would not pursue the mattir
trial clay®, an
were
gent,L.raLli incise had unfortunately said that there
Y,about 30 children ill. He would now call
attention to the kind of punishments in-
and to
There was what was called a
shieleanaceo.;.:ria.ayino in that, epoaliatiodna
pas
,übjectead the rigours of which class this child
placed in a room
__l'_'.:
_child under this punishment was
face to the wall, where she
wabassoci ompen_ed ._ wettle her
turn hueter fyo rhappeneddays
in
if she on th
commence her task a -r the other,
she was eohig l' d td
days. One of the wit"' anri °
,a,ea ,g through another 14
first offence was a period of said tat the time for the
and for the third oftenes 2514 days, for the
second 18,
to this punishment the plaida"' Ile had said that
but there was a difference asiltti,)fl had been subjected,
which she endured it. Another peseg.et period for
punish-
ment was the kitchen, and whilst there the of t
Funishment was hardworkod, and W 05110% allowed under
cl
to hold