The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-06 00:00:00

THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF SMITHSON

HAWDON AND OTHERS.
Mr. JARVIS moved for a rule to show cause why the
taxation of costs in this case should not be set aside, or
reviewed by the proper officer of the Court, and, in the
meantime, for a stay of proceedings. In this case an
indictment had been preferred against Hawdon, Rich-
ardson, and several other persons for conspiracy to libel
and for several libels. It was removed by certiorari at
the instance of the defendants, principally on the
ground that there was a charge of conspiracy.
The indictment was tried, but the charge of
conspiracy was abandoned, and there was a
verdict of guilty against Richardson, the defendant,
for whom he now appeared. The Clerk in Court, on
the part of the prosecutor, was Mr. Jones, of the Crown
Office, and after the verdict was given it was necessary
to tax the costs, which amounted to 349/. 18s. 4d. An
appointment was make by Mr. Dealtry, and Mr.
Richardson's attorney, who attended, protested against
Mr. Jones taxing the costs in his own cause, stating
that the proper officer was Mr. Dealtry. Mr. Jones,
however, persisted in so doing, and that was the first
ground of the motion. The other ground was that
certain charges had been allowed for the conspiracy,
including fees, &c., for three counsel, attendance of
witnesses, &c., when the conspiracy had been abandoned.
His LORDSHIP granted a rule to show cause, but said
it must be argued in the other Court.

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY

FALSE IMPRISONMENT AT GIBRALTAR.-GLYNN V,

HOUSTON.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved, on the part of the
defendant, for a new trial. The action was for false
imprisonment, brought by a merchant resident at Gib-
raltar, against Sir William Houston, the Governor ;
and tried at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice Erskine—
verdict for plaintiff, damages 501. The Governor hav-
ing heard that Torrijos, the Spanish refugee, was lurk•
ing in the neighbourhood, sent a detachment of soldiers
to search a building adjoining Mr. Glynn's house, the
soldiers being commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Maire.
While the search was going on, Mr. Glynn, attempting
to leave his house, was prevented by the sentinel pre-
senting arms.

Chief Justice TlNDAL—Presenting bayonets you
mean, I suppose ; not what we call presenting arms.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Oh,certainly, my Lords,
it was not honoris causa.—(Laughter.) It amounted to
imprisonment undoubtedly. But the question was,
whether it had been authorized by the Governor. Now
he (the Attorney-General) insisted that this was no
question at all, seeing that it did not result from the
Governor's order to search the next house, that the
soldier should have prevented Mr. Glynn from leaving
his own. His Lordship, however, left it to the Jury,
and of this he (the Attorney-General) complained as
misdirection.

The Court held that the question had properly been
left to the Jury ; but the rule nisi might go, on the
ground of against evidence.

BAYLIS V. STRICKLAND, AND OTHERS.
This was an action for false imprisonment, brought
by the late crier of Evesham, against the Magistrates,
who had, under the Muncipal Act, committed him to
goal for refusing to deliver up his bell to his successor.
—(Laughter.) At the trial it was set up by the plaintiff,
that the bell was his own, and not corporate property.
To the admission of that evidence, the defendant's
counsel objected, .as. it had not been given at the com-
mittal. The Learned Judge, however, (Mr. Justice
Williams) admitted the evidence, and the verdict passed
for plaintiff. Mr. ALEXANDER now moved for a rule to
show cause why there should not be a new trial.
Rule nisi granted.

PEAR3ON V. MILLS.

This was an action for slander brought by Mr.
Charles Pearson against the engineer of one of the
Brighton Railway Companies—tried at Guildhall, with
a verdict of 1501. for plaintiff.
Mr. ERLE moved for a new trial, or for an arrest of
judgment, on the ground that the words could not sup-
port an action. Some dispute arose as to the summing
up, and

MC LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said it was rather un-
fortunate that Mr. Mills had defended himself; his
cause had thereby been damaged ; and he had taken no
notes of the charge.
Mr. ERLE said perhaps he might appeal then to the
counsel of the plaintiff at the trial (Mr. Peacock), who
was now in court.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he thought Mr.
Peacock need not object to letting Mr. Erie see his
notes of the charge—which did not appear the private
property of one or another of the parties.
Mr. PEACOCK assented to this, !tad the case is to be
mentioned to-morrow.