The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-16 00:00:00

Mr. Baron ALDERSOg had proceeded sonic way in
summing up, when
The Jury, stopping his Lordship, said they would not
trouble him to go through the remainder of the evidence.
They were perfectly satisfied on the matter. They
were of opinion that the verdict ought to go for the
plaintiff—Damages, 95/.
The verdict was accordingly taken in that way.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dic. 14.
LEES V. BERRY.

This was an action for malicious arrest and false im-
prisonment, to which the defendant had pleaded in jus-
tification that a felony had been committed on his pre-
mises, and had also specially pleaded several facts as
forming good ground of suspicion against the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant Bompss and Mr. Peacock appeared
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Andrews and Mr. James
for the defendant.
The plaintiff, it appeared, had been an assistant and
shoprnan in the employ of the defendant, who was a
linen-draper and hosier in the neighbourhood of Lisson-
grove, Paddington, and, on the morning of the 30th
September last, the defendant gave the plaintiff
in custody of a policeman, on a charge of having
embezzled three shillings and two sixpences, and
z:aused him to be taken to a police station in the
first instance, where the charge was taken down in the
usual manner, and thence before Mr. Rawlinson, the
sitting Magistrate at the Marylebone Police-office.
There the defendant was sworn and made his state-
ment ; but, after hearing the case, the Magistrate dis-
charged the plaintiff, on the ground that the money
was not found on his person. The plaintiff was in cus-
tody from about half-past eleven till haif-?st two
o'clock, and for that imprisonment he now sough: com-
pensation. The defendant, loy his pleas, had alleged
that the money in question had been secreted in a cer-
tain part of the defendant's shop, and having been dis-
covered so secreted by the defendant, it had been re-
moved, marked, and then replaced by the defendant ;
and that after that replacing it had been abstracted, the
plaintiff being the only person who had access to the
place where the money had been so secreted.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff was directed
principally to proving the arrest and imprisonment.
The principal witness on the part of the defendant
was an apprentice of his of the age of seventeen, who
swore that he had as long as three months before this
transaction observed the plaintiff, when he had received
money from the customers, put a portion of it only in
till. He made a number of other statements, which,
looking at the verdict of the Jury, did not appear to
obtain much credit.
The Learned JUDGE, in summing up, said that this
case was of the utmost importance to the parties con-
cerned, as it most seriously involved the characters both
of the plaintiff and defendant. This was not like the
common case in which the mere question was whether
the defendant had probable cause for what he had
done, for hereupon the evidence was applicable to the
pleadings ; the first question which they must decide
was whether the plaintiff had been guilty of felony
by abstracting this money, which had been secreted be-
neath the till in the defendant's shop, removed and
marked by him ; and in deciding that question, of
course, they would require evidence as strict as if this
were a criminal proceeding. The next question for them
was whether the defendant had proved the facts alleged
in his plea as just grounds of suspicion, or, at least,
had proved enough to constitute a just ground of
suspicion. Now one of these grounds was, that the
money had been abstracted from a position which, during
the interval between the replacing of it by the defen-
dant after he had marked it, and its abstraction, was
accessible to the plaintiff only. That marking and re-
placing occurred on the Sunday night, and there could
be little doubt that the place after that was accessible
to others, for the apprentice boy stated, that he and
his master had looked at it on Monday morning. He
would, however, in addition, ask them to consider
whether the place was accessible to others but the
plaintiff, after the defendant and his apprentice had
seen it on Monday morning. The Learned Judge
made some comments on the conflicting statements
applicable to those questions, and left it to the Jury to
decide between them. If they found for the plaintiff,
then they must give such fair and reasonable damages
as would compensate him for the injury he sustained.
The Jury, after some deliberation, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages 701., finding that the
felony had not been proved, and that the place was ac-
cessible to others.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT, Dim 14.

JUDGMENT IN THE MARQUIS OF HUNTLEY'S ATTACH-

ME NT.

Patterson, Manager of the North Scotland Banking
Company, Plaintiff ; the Marquis of Huntley, defen-
dant ; Majoribanks and Co., garnishees.
The defendant sought to set aside the proceedings in
this attachment, on the ground that, being a Peer of the
United Kingdom, he was privileged from being sued
in an inferior Court, and consequently an attachment
against his effects, in order to compel his appearance,
could not be supported, and ought to be set aside.
The RECORDER. delivered judgment. " If," said his
Lordship." I felt any doubt on the point raised in this
case, I should not decide upon the motion, but should
leave the Marquis to raise the question of privilege."
His Lordship then took a review of the different cases
which had been cited, and dwelt particularly on that of
Lord Mountjoy, reported in Leonard, 209, as showing
that the rule ought to be discharged. It appeared to him
that the privilege of Peers was founded on the supposi-
tion that a Peer, by reason of his dignity, had ample
goods for the satisfaction of his debts. By being subject
to attachment a Peer was not necessarily restrained in
his person, but it was the only means of compelling him
to appear to the process of the Court. The distinction
between that process and that of arrest had been fre-
quently recognised. An attorney was not subject to ar-
rest, but his goods might be attached. A party who had
been once arrested could not be arrested again for the
same debt, although his goods had been attached. A Peer
•f the realm could not be arrested, but his goods could be
attached.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION HOUSE.

A female of respectable appearance and address re-
presented to the Lord Mayor that she was the widow
of a man of considerable military rank, and sought his
advice as to the mode of proceeding which it would he
advisable for her to adopt, in order to obtain restitution
of the pay of an officer's widow, from which she was
debarred by means of a forged marriage certificate, pro-
cured by another woman, who now enjoyed the allow-
ance, while want stared the real wife in the face.
The LORD MAYoa asked the applicant whether she
had the certificate of her marriage with the deceased
officer ? .

The Lady replied, that she had, and produced the
document, which appeared to have been regularly at-
tested. She likewise produced several letters from
highly respectable individuals confirmatory of her claim.
She had, she said, every reason to believe, if she could
obtain a passage to the country on the Government of
which she had the claim, the title to the allowance
would be at once recognised, and the pension would
not only he settled upon her, but the amount of back
pay, from which she had been excluded by the machina-
tions of the pretended widow, would be placed at her
disposal.
The LORD Alwvott desired to know whether she had
applied to any official of the Government on the sub-
ject ? The lady replied that she had written to Lord
Palmerston a statement of the facts, and referred his
Lordship to persons who were ready to certify as to the
truth of her allegations, but the reply of his Lordship
was that the Government. had no packets to the coun-
try to which she was desirous to go to establish her
claim. Her husband had seen a vast deal of service,
and had fallen a victim to it at last, and she was in a
state of complete destitution. As to the truth of her
claim there can be no doubt, and if some benevolent in-
dividual would promise her the passage, and advance
her five pounds, she would repay the whole, with the
deepest gratitude, upon being placed upon the pay-list.
The LORD MAYOR said it was quite impossible
that, situated as he was, he could give anything but ad-
vice, which was that the lady should make an experi-
ment upon the Consul for the country to which it was
necessary to repair.

Mr. Hobler said that the case appeared to be one
in which the kind and benevolent offices of the press
might be efficiently employed, for the town abounded
with charitable individuals who might consider the case
one which was entitled to their sympathy, confirmed, as
it appeared to be, by documents, the authenticity of
which there appeared to be no reason to quest"'

GUILDHALL.
charged be-
George Daley, a lad 19 years old, bd, his own
viv:gs,
h y
fore Mr. Alderman WHITE with
and on suspicion
confession, stolen 60/. worth of cloth,
of having stolen 150/. worth more.
woollen-ware-
houseman, stated, that
Mr. Anson, of No. 106, Nvo
on the 13th ult., the ware-
house was entered
by. colh were stolen. On that
means of skeleton keys, and
eleven pieces of black
with him, locked the warehouse
night a friend, who
street door. The pri-
soner,door, and,el 0
ck witnessnex t
who is the porter, came as usual for the keys at
mlwo
ocakrsne d g t, h e
returned in afew mi-
nutesin but '
him that he found the warehouse door
and half a pile of the black cloths missing. Wit-
nessopen,
the place. Ti, 1
hastened to ..e sauttars were not yet
seven
too inform
down, and the warehouse was so dark that he could not
tell that anything had been stolen. This, however,
did not strike him as suspicious, but two of the ser-
geants of police closely interrogated the prisoner, and
searched his place of residence. Nothing transpired to
at all implicate the prisoner till the present week, when, in
taking stock, they found some of the pieces of buckskin
had been cut, and there was a deficiency of 110 yards.
As this could only have been done by the prisoner ;
witness taxed him with the robbery. He at first de-
nied it, but, on being told he should be forgiven if he
would afford such information as to how he had dis-
posed of the property, so as to lead to its recovery, he
confessed he had pawned it, and named the shops ; but
as this confession related only to the buckskin, and he