The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-09 00:00:00

LAW iLli TELLIGEN CE.

COUr(T OF CHANCERY, FEB. 8.
The Ur:, CHANCELLOR sat in Lincoln's Inn Hall this
mrrtr, wh;.th was the first day of his Lordship's sittings
the tfamination of the Term.

CODRINRTON V. JOHNSON.
''The arguments in this part-heard appeal were resumed
but had not concluded when the Court rose. They
will be proceeded viith to-morrow (this day).

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FEB. 8.
His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR, after disposing of
several short matters at the head of his paper, and a great
number of unopposed petitions, proceeded to hear the fur-
ther arguments in the part-heard case of

IT. JOHN'S COLLEGE V. PRATT, CARTER, AND OTHERS.
The case came before his lioNott, upon motion for the
committal of the defendant Pratt, for the breach of an in-
junction.

Mr. Knight Bruce and Mr. Bellamy, who appeared
on behalf of the College, were heard yesterday ; rod Mr.
Wakefield and Mr. Randall, on behalf of Mr. Pratt, ad-
dressed the Court to-day.
From the statements of Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE it appeared
that the injunction bad originally issued against the other
defendants, restraining them from cutting down, destroying,
or carrying away any trees or underwood in Bagley Wood,
in the county of Berks. The bill was afterwards amended
by the 'introduction of Pratt as defendant ; and the Lord
'Chancellor, during the long vacation, had extended the in-
junetiorne him. Bagley Wood was a very extensive tract
in then ri,! ‘'iourhood of Oxford, containing some fine tim-
ber, and a reat quantity of underwood. Over a great
'part of this. ract a right of common existed, but the soil
and the timber were the property of the College. The
rest of the defendants, besides Pratt, were mere cottagers.
who were acting under the directions of others in
committing the depredations. The College was
anxious to abstain from personally visiting on these
misguided persons the legal consequences of their acts,
and hoped, by getting at the authors of the mischief, to
prevent its recurrence. A few years ago the College
found it necessary to resist poaching on the wood, and
they selected Mr. Pratt, who keeps a cigar-shop in Ox-
ford, as a proper object of punishment and example. Pratt
was convicted of poaching—the act was killing a rabbit ;
and he had ever since devoted what time he could spare
from his shop in stirring up the minds of the peasantry in
the neighbourhood, that they had a right to cut down for
raring, and even for sale, everything short of timber that
could be found upon the lands. The consequences in the
county where this delusion existed were very serious. It
seemed to be a supposed sort of right, not as appendant or
appurtenant to propert7 in any legal sense, but of inha-
bitancy, so that the occupier of any cottage by the week or
day acquired a general right of spoliating the wood. Some
designing persons had made the ignorant population believe
this was their right, and that it was cruelly withheld
from them ; aed unless the College could be effectively
assisted by the Court, the property would be destroyed,
and numbers and force would prevail against right. Pratt
was unquestionably the main spring of all these proceed.
sngs; and it was considered that an injunction against him
rught have the effect of protecting the property. The
case which the affidavitsmade was, not that Pratt had him.
self touched the timber, but that he had by his presence
and conduct encouraged and abetted the trespassers. On
the 14th of December last the College sent three wag-
gons from Oxford to remove the wood which the tics-
passers had cut on previous occasions. When the first
Waggon, which was much in advance of the others, reached
the wood it was met by a rudely-armed multitude with
clubs and billhooks and other instruments. As the
waggon was turning into the wood, Carter, one of the de-
fendants, struck the fore horse, and the mob, by
threats and violence, compelled the waggon to turn
about and go back to Oxford. The triumph was too good
to end there. The parties concerned determined to take
a step further and to remove the timber for themselves.
They procured a waggon of their own, conveyed a load of
wood to Oxford in a triumphal procession, and carried it
to the wharf of a person named Hopkins. It appeared
son.o persons, who are called in the affidavits ladies and
gentlemen, subscribed to comfort the ri aers, and out of
the rent a cask of ale was bought and carried to the wood,
and merrily drunk in a corona of faggots, in divan fashion,
while a second waggon was loading. The second lead
was brought to Oxford in like manner, and this concluded
the triumphs of the day. It did not appear that Pratt was
present on the first occasion when the waggon was turned
back. He had, in fact, nothing on earth to do with the
wood, except as a patriot, but hearing that the College
were beaten back he hied to the place, and it Was not
suggested as any part of his case that he intimated to one
of the deluded peasants that their conduct was unlawful.
Ile was Moro when the second waggon was loaded, and
when the beer was drunk, but he took good care
not to touch a stick, save for the purpose of sitting on it.
If he could not go farther than this, he (Mr. Knight
Br9see,), would confidently submit, that he had made out
a case fcr the committal of Pratt as aiding and abetting.
But theeet was another remarkable incident. One of the
Witnesses swore that he heard Pratt say to a person in the
Wood, " If you don't stick up for your rights now, you de-
serve to lose every drop of blood in your veins." Pratt
made several subsequent affidavits, leaving this statement
uncontradicted. But advice, no doubt, was given ; and
there came at length a supplemental affidavit from him, deny-
ing the words. But it was very remarkable that the affidavit
of the witness did not stop there, but went on to give the
rest of the conversation, which was not c mtradicted. Pratt
says, " If you don't stick up for your rights you deserve to
lose every drop of blood in /our veins." And the reply is,
They would ; tiv?re should not a faggot go ;it was r
right, and they should have it." That unuontradietcd
reply must have been in answer to something, and what
that something was neither appears from the affidavit of
the witness, or was not disclosed by Pratt. Ile was the
instigator of all the original mischief, destruction, and
plunder, and on the 14th he was found in the wood amidst
the plunder, avowing that he, the friend of the poor,, did
riot attempt to stop it. If further proof were wanting of
the participation of Pratt in the present outrage, it, was
only necessary for him to read a !etter he bad addressed
to Lord Abingdon,the Lord Lieutenant of the County of
Berks. That letter was to the following effect :—" My
Lord7-,.1t is with the greatest pleasure and satisfaction that
1 can inform your Lordship that we have put a stopper on
the President and Scholars of St. John's College, from
robbing you of your manor, and the commoners of their
common of Bagley. The greatest praise is due to your
keeper, Mr. Barrett, for his determined and manly con-
duct to protect your Lordship's rights. As to Duffield,
Spinton, Esq., and the Rev. Dodson, they did all in
their power, as well as Curtis the town-clerk, to further the
liisbes of the College to establish the land to be the whole
and sole property of the College, and Dodson said a good
title was made out to sell it to the Duke of Wellington, but
all their eloquence was a feather to balance the globe com-
pared with Mr. Frankum, of Abingdon. I know, my
Lord, I have been painted in the worst of colours to you,
and I acknowledge I was wrong in killing the spotted
pheasant ; but I humbly beg your Lordship's pardon, and
I hope what I have now done will, in part, atone for my
misconduct. lam now determined to follow up our vic-
tory, by endeavouring to recover back for the poor old
people of Hunksey, Rc., their wood, which is also unlaw-
fully taken from them by the College. I have a petition
preparing by Mr. Frankum, who told me he will be
bound to lose his life if he doth not recover it. Their
principal evidence says he swore false on the trial ; and
flayward, of Hunksey, said on his oath, on Monday last,
which Mr. Barrett heard, that the Judge that tried the cause
said, when the verdict was given, Gentlemen of the
Jury, You have given away the rights of the poor. I beg,
my I.4)rd, you'll not inform Mr. Walsh anything on the
subject, as ho is sure to inform the College agent. The
letter I sent Mr. Barr att, last year, he took a copy of, and
'showed it to Mr. Murrell. M. told me he had seen it, and
named the contents. I say now, my Lord, as I said then,
I'll never strike to those black tyrants as long as I have a
llbot in the locker. I beg your Lordship to excuse my
blunt address, as I was not educated at St. John's College;
but I ought to assist not to distress the poor. When the
copies of the petition are printed I will take the liberty of
sending you one, which I hope will be in a few days.
I rtm, my Lord, .your Lordship's obedient servant,

•
" TIIOS. PRATT.
" Oxfqrd, Aug. 21. Lord Abingdon, Witham."
On the whole, the Learned Counsel submitted that he
was entitled to do oader, under all the circumstances, for
tho committal of Pratt.

Mr. WAKEFieui and Mr. RANDALL, on behalf of Mr.
Pratt, submitted that nothing whatever had been brought
before the Court thet could justify the assertions that had
been made, that he was the instigator of the whole of the
disturbance that had taken place.
Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE replied, and
The VICE-CHANCELLOR immediately gave judgment,
ordering that Mr. Pratt should stand committed to the
Meet, for a breach of the injunction of the Court.

'EEN'S BENCH, FEB. 8.
PALMER V. BROOKS.

The plaintiff in this case is a cowkeeper in the Borough,
and the defendant the keeper of a beer-shop at Shirley.
The action was brought to recover compensation in
damages for the injury which the plaintiff had sustained i❑
consequence of the negligence of the defendant. It ap-
peared that on the 26th April the plaintiff and his brother
Went in a chaise to Shirley, and started back about nine
o'clock in the evening. After they had proceeded about
200 yards, the chaise came in contact with a waggon
which was standing on the road opposite the house of the
defendant, and the plaintiff was thrown to the ground with
great violence and was unable to atttend to his business
for two or three weeks afterwards.

Mr. C. JONES appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. PLATT
and Mr. CtIANN ELL for tho defendant.

Th© Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
roagea, U.

COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 8.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice COLTMAN and

a Common Jury, at Westminster.)
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.—RICTIARDS V. STEBBING.
This was one of those cases which have lately become
vet) nume,rous, of actions for imprisonment.undcr false
Charges of felony.
Sergeant WILDE and Mr. BARSTOW were for the plain-
tiff, and 'Sergeant BOMPAS for the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence, that in October, 1837,
the parties were at the Surrey Zoological Gardens,
on the exhibition of the eruption of Mount Vcsu-
'line- The defendant having lost a pair of gloves,
and suspecting that plaintiff had them, gave him in charge
policeman, by whom he was searched, but nothing was
'°1.4.4d upon him which ho defendant could claim. He
1/48, however, taken to the-station-house in Lock's-fields.
un the policeman writing the charge defendant refused to
ilia it,

A. discussion then arose as to whether the charge was to
DeDe
given in evidence, Sergeant Wilde contending that it
lel"! not be evidence against the defendant, he rot
n"lnd g Signed it. Sergeant Bompas, on the other hand,
fge
re.ci that the charge only was any evidence, and
reTded his Lordship that the other day he had
received the charge in evidence. To which the Learned
Judge replied, that in that case the defendant had signed
thz charge, and his Lordship now refused to allow the
chug° to be put in.
}vidcnce for the plaintiff continued.—At the station-

house defendant stated thathe was standing by the beast-
house ; that no other person but the plaintiff and a younger
man (his son) were by him at the time ; that he felt some-
thing at his pocket, and on looking saw plaintiff's hand
there, and immediately found he had lost his gloves. He
spoke to a policeman, who said be had considered plaintiff's
conduct suspicious, and defendant then gave bim in custody ;
plaintiff was detained till next morning, when he was
brought before the Magistrates at Union-Hall, as on a
charge of felony the policeman could never discharge a
person before he had been brought before a Magistrate.
Plaintiff and his son were locked up all night.
On cross-examination it came out that a po.icema r,wno
took plaintiff into custody, signed the charge ; that when
a charge of felony was made, which the party making it
did not press, the person charged was dismissed, unless
other evidence was brought forward, in which case the
charge was signed by the person producing that additional
evidence. _ _ .

That policeman being called, stated that he had signed
the charge, because, though Stebbing refused to sign it, he
said that he still believed the plaintiff had stolen his gloves.
But the witness admitted that he himself, from his obser-
vation, had felt suspicion.
The plaintiff it appeared was a person of high and re-
spectable position in society—being an engineer and ma-
chinist.

Sergeant BOMPAS for the defence, argued that the de-
fendant was not liable for the detention of the plaintiff, be-
cause he refused to sign the charge at the station-house,
and called witnesses who proved that the defendant ex-
pressly had said that he could not charge the plaintiff, as
the gloves were not found upon him—whereupon the po-
liceman said they did not doubt but that the plaintiff was no
better than he should be, and that he would be heard of in
the course of the night. Plaintiff declared that defendant
should hear from him for that—he would enter an action
against him. To which the policeman rejoined, that he
never heard a thief who did not say the same thing.—
(Laughter. )
Sergeant WILDE made a most able reply, stating that
defendant had in fact greatly aggravated his original of-
fence by adopting a course of examination which tended to
cast insinuation on the plaintiff, and contending that the
defendant was clearly liable for the arrest, because it had
not been contradicted that he had asserted to the police-
man that plaintiff he believed had stolen his gloves.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN told the jury that the rule of law
was, that a person who suspected another of felony would
not be liable for that party's arrest, by merely communicat-
ing to an officer his suspicions, even if that officer did take
the party into custody. But he would be liable if he de-
sired the officer to take the party into custody, and the sus-
picion turned out to be groundless. It was for the jury to
say if they believed the defendant had desired the officer
to take plaintiff into custody, and if so, what damages
should be given.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 201.
The parties, after some consultation, agreed to take a
verdict for 40s.