The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-28 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEA S, Nov. 26.

Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice MAULE and a
Common Jury.)
FELL V. ROSSLIN.

This was an action for a malicious prosecution—the
plea was the general issee.
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS and Mr. V. LEE were for the
plaintiff, Mr. KELLY for the defendant.
From the plaintiff's evidence it appeared that he
was a builder, living in Westminster-road, and had been
employed to erect a house for a Mr. Valentine at Nor-
wood. Defendant was a timber merchant, and had
left his card at Fell's ; upon which Fell went to Ross-
iin's yard and ordered three pieces of timber, which
accordingly were delivered (value 141.) at the premises,
the ticket being directed to a Mr. Morrison. Feh
knowing that these were for him, and believing there
was a mistake, altered the name to his own, and sent it
back with " Received" written. A few days afterwards,
offering the money, it was refused, Mr. Rosslin saying
that the timber had been obtained under Use pr'-
tepees. On this charge plaintiff had been brought ba
fore Mr. Jeremy, at Union Hall, committed, tried, and
acquitted. The plaintiff's brother stated that the ex-
penses of the defence had amounted to upwards of 1001,
Mr. KELLY submitted that there was no case hr
the Jury. No allegation in the declaration had been
fully proved. As for instance, that defendant had
caused plaintif to be taken in custody on such a charge,
and had caused the Magistrate to commit him for trial
on such a charge.
The LEARNED JUDGE said as this was an action on
the case, the declaration might he divided into as many
parts as allegations—that the failure of proof in any
would not vitiate the rest—and that any evidence that
defendant, for example, was connected with the indict-
ment of plaintiff was sufficient to go to the Jury.
Mr. KELLY urged that as the declaration alleged that
defendant had caused plaintiff to be committed, the de-
positions before the Magistrate should be put in by
plaintiff, as they were the charge on which the com-
mittal took place.
The LEARNED JUDGE thought otherwise. The de-
positions certainly snowed the charge for which the
Magistrate committed: But the Magistrate's conduct
was not in question. It was what had been stated by
defendant ; and a man might make a charge without
making a deposition, and such was the fact in Mr. Ross-
lin's case.

••••
Mr. KELLY addressed the Jury forcibly for the de-
fendant, relying principally on the f,,ct that in the d,po-
sitions (which he put in) one of defendant's servants had
stated that on Feli's coining to order the timber the
clerk said, " Oh ! you are Mr. Morrison Y' and that
Fell gave to that " some sort of assent."
The LEARNED JUDGE, in charging the Jury, said
first, as to the evidence connecting defendant with the
prosecution, he considered the facts, which had been
deposed to, that he opposed the bail at the Police-office
and went before the Grand Jury sufficient. Then as to
malice, which in law meant not spite merely, but any
bad motive ; the Jury would infer that, or not, from
there being, or not being, in their opinion, reasonable
and probable cause for the prosecution. Of this they
were to judge. As to the depositions, they were no
evidence on this trial of the tact of Mr. Fell's acknow
!edging the name of Mr. Morris ; if that fact had
had been so, the witness might have been called now,
and examined as to it.
Immediately on the Learned Judge concluding,
Mr. KELLY rose and said—l beg to except, my Lord,
to your Lordship's summing up in these particulars.
First, that your Lordship did not state to the Jury
what facts would amount to reasonable and probable
cause.
The Learned JUDGE-I left it to them to say what

Lord, I except, sub-
waAsirreaKsoEnLaLbylefrdoptrhoabta,ballesoc,amusye.
the Jury.
mitring that your Lordship ought not to have left it to
plaintiff's clerk wdeposition
who made the as to Morris's
I also except that your Lordship said the
name might now have been called ; whereas his evi-
dence, without proof of the fact having been communi-
cated to the defendant,
would have been inadmissible.
The Jury found for the plaintiff.—Damages 500/.
The .tonouncernent of the verdict appeared to create
some surpri4e in a very crowded Court.

CENTRAL CRTIVINAL COURT.

OLD COURT
(Before Air. Sergeant ARABIN.)
William Carroll, a tailor, was indicted for feloniously
cutting and wounding John Carroll, with intent to do
him some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. PRENDERGAST, who appeared for the prosecu-
tion, said that the prisoner was the father of John Car-
roll, who was about six years of age, and whom he was
charged with ill using. The child's mother was dead,
with Inflater woman.

Eti l > .