The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-17 00:00:00

DUBOIS V. MEATS.

Sir F. POLLOCK (with whom were Mr. PLATT and
Mr. HODGINS) stated the case. It was an action
brought by the plaintiff, a stone-mason, of Lewisham, in
Kent, against the defendant, a gentleman of some pro-
perty, to recover compensation for having maliciously,
and without reasonable or probable cause, preferred an
indictment for felony against the plaintiff, at the Central
Criminal Court, in May last. The plaintiff was ac-
quitted. The Learned Counsel entered into a length-
ened statement of the case, and called the following wit-
nesses.
Mr. Parks, one of the Clerks of the Court of Re-
quests, Greenwich, produced the books of the Court,
in which the issuing of a summons at the suit of the
plaintiff, Dubois, and the order to pay the sum claimed,
21. 65., by the defendant Keats was entered. It was
for work and labour done.

Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—There was a set
off, but it could not be then gone into.
Another witness named Matteson proved that the
amount '2l. 6s. was paid to him by Mr. Keats, who was
rather in a passion. He said "he would serve Dubois
out, and that he thought he could make out a charge of
felony against him." Witness advised him to let it
alone.
George Barham, a constable of Lewisham, took
plaintiff into custody on the 6th of May, on a warrant,
issued by the Magistrates. On Saturday, the 4th of May,
Mr. Keats asked me to go with him to Dubois's house.
He said he came to demand his marble, and Dubois
brought him into his yard and showed him the marble
in a state of preparation. I heard Mr. Keats, on the
6th, apply for the warrant against Dubois. When I
took Dubois before the Magistrates the case was ad-
journed till the following Monday, Dubois being set at
liberty. I again went with Mr. ;Keats, on the 6th, to
Dubois's house. We searched. and found several
pieces of marble, only one of which was claimed by Mr.
Keats. On the 13th the case came for re-hearing be-
fore the Magistrates, and Dubois was bailed to appear
at the Old Bailey Sessions. Dubois, on the 6th, re-
quested that the marble at Mr. Keats's premises should
be measured, and I accompanied the parties. I remem-
ber a piece of marble being found under some rubbish.
Another piece was found among some rough stuff in
the shed. These two pieces were claimed by Dubois
as part of the marble he had worked. Mr. Keats and
his witness were present. The deficiency was found to
be very trifling—a foot and one or two inches. I at-
'waded at the Old Bailey Sessions afterwards, and we
remained till Wednesday. Mr. Keats remarked to me,
" Oh, dear, I feel very ill ; I would sooner have given
101. than it should have come to this." I told him I
thoaght Dubois was innocent. I saw Dubois afterwards
in the dock. Mr. Keats was examined as a witness.
The Jury stopped the Counsel.
Mr. TUESIGER objected to the observatiens of the
Learned Judge on the statement made by the Jury
being given in evidence.
Witness—They acquitted Dubois, and he was im-
mediately discharged. He is a married man with a
family.
Cross-examined—l did not bear Dubois say when
I arrested him, " I did not take any marble ;" he
said, " I know nothing about it.'—[The depositions
were produced, and the previous words were found in
the witness's evidence.]
James Sword was present when the marble was
measured at Mr. Keats's house. Mr. Keats pulled out
his purse, and I understood him to offer me money,
hut I declined it. The other witness, Grimmel, and
myself had no difference as to the measurement. All
the pieces found were identified as belonging to the
marble worked by Dubois. There was seventy or
eighty feet altogether, and the deficiency was about one
foot three or four inches. _ _

--
William Field, short-hand writer at the Old Bailey,
read the evidence given at the trial for felony.
After one or two other witnesses had been examined,
whose evidence contained nothing of importance,
Mr. THESIGER (with whom were Mr. Kelly and
Mr. Marten) addressed the Jury for the defendant, and
examined the foilowing,witnesses.

James Clements, a labourer in defendant's employ,
stated that in October, 1838, he saw the plaintiff take
away three or four pieces of marble from defendant's
house in a donkey cart. It was polished at the time,
and plaintiff said it was by Mr. Keats's orders.
William Blackwell, a carpenter, was in the defen-
dant's employment in the month of October, 1838, and
saw the plaintiff and Clements put two or three pieces
of marble into a donkey cart.
James Carter lives within t. couple of miles of de-
fendant's house. Saw the plaintiff with a donkey cart,
on which were some pieces of marble, on the 21st Oc-
tober, 1838.
George Grimmell, a stone mason, was in the defen-
dant's employment in 1838. There was a stock of mar-
ble in the house. Saw a chimney-piece taken down last
summer in Mr. Cooper's house. It was taken to Mr.
Keats's, and part of it corresponded with the marble in
Mr. Keats's stock, and part of it corresponded with that
in a chimney-piece which Mr. Keats had put up in an-
other house. I only judge they are the same as Mr.
Keats's, from the colour and the veins. [The marble
was here produced, and shown to the witness.]
William Talmage was employed by Mr. Keats to re-
move some marble, in the April of last year, to his
house. One of the pieces of marble now produced is
the same. I know it, because one of the veins resem-
bles an old man's face. It is about a week since I told
that to the attorney, and the marble was then shown to
me in Mr. Keats's parlour.
William Peacock was in Mr. Cooper's employment
in October, 1838. Some marble for a chimney-piece
was brought by plaintiff at that time to his master's
house. The chimney-piece was afterwards put up in
the house. - _

Stephen Cooper, a builder at Greenwich—The plain-
tiff agreed with me, in the summer of 1838, for six
Portland stone and one marble chimney-piece. I paid
21. 10s. for the marble one. It is impossible to recog-
nise marble of the same quality.
Sir F. PoLLocK replied, and the Jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1501.