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

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Noy. b.

-7" - - - -
..'
THE BARONESS VON BECK'S CASE.-CONSTANT DERRA. DE
DIARODA -tt GEORGE DAWSON AND OTHERS..--RITLE NISI

FOR A NEW TRIAL.
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 throagh 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 tthen 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 with 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 Von Beck
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 de Maroda, charg-
ing him with fraudulent misrepresentation, whereby
the defendant Dawson was defrauded of the sum of
1/. 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 the depositions
of the defendant upon which it was asserted a warrant
was obtained, were before the Court. The manner in
which these depositions wore 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 set the police court in motion.
Mr Serjeant Miller, however, contended that, notwith-
standing the informality of he 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 Ry., 97) in support.
Rule nisi granted.

BAIL COURT.--Nov. 6.
THE QUEEN v. THE JUDGE OF A COUNTY •OUST.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. Hawkins applied on behalf of a defendant in a case
.hat came before the 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 hear the evi-
dence of the defendant in a cause which wag tried in a
County Court. It appeared that on the 2d June last a
summons was issued by the judgo against the present
applicant and his wife, for the sum of 11/. 93. ld., the
amount of a promissory note. The defendant appeared
to prove that the promissory note was made after his
marriage with his wife, and that therefore this action
was wrongly brought. The judge refused to hoar this
evidence, and made au 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 due an application
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, beforo 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 tin-
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 Day.
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 be put to him under the act.
He was questioned as to whether ho could then pay,
and stated that he could not. He was going on to explain
why he could not do so, when he was interrupted by the
judge, who said that he 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 in 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 hoar.
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. 6,
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, when the
jury found a verdict for the defendants.
Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., now appeared on the
part of the plaintiff to more tor a rule, calling upon the
defendant,' to show cause why this verdict should not
be set aside, and a new 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 breach of
their duty they had overworked her, and sot her tasks
iujuriou3 to her health, and thus caused the injuries she
had sustained' The defendants pleaded not guilty, and
aiso 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
Mr.
place, Chapman, was consulted about hor, but she
~
did not get netter. 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 care 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 were received into
the institution—one class called boarders, who paid 301.
a-year each ; and the other the orphanage class, for
whom 121. cash 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
hours of the establishment find the bad quality of the
food ; but he said that, as there was a conflict of evi-
denceupon these points, he would not pursue th© matter
Madame L'Espinaseo had unfortunately said that there
were generally,about 30 children ill. He would now call
Meted in t,41
their lordships'
placed in a room eivA:
Was classattention, to the kind of punishments in-
and ntatitution. There was what was called a
was
tuttiectea o the rigours of which clam this child
was compello to lth her
child under this punishment was
absolute silence taco to the wall, where she
andremainif
in that position for 14 days in
tarn her head one
wayll E:?1. the other, she was obliged to
days. One of the witnesses ,
and
go
she on the 13 day happened t)
commence her task
through another 14
offence scfaiElaid that the time for the
25 -a days, for the second 18,
had been subjected,
efinr sdt fort/ ntchee thirdas a
to this punishment the piainN• He had said that
but there was a difference as to
A o the exactperiod for
went she endured it. aather 1
went wa3 the kitchen, and whilst thejge ofpunish-
E u ai3h micat was harcinotlied, and was opt allowed
under
t to hold