The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-13 00:00:00

GOULD V. BARRETT.

This action was brought for the purpose of recovering
damages for an alleged false imprisonment and malicious ar-
rest, without probable cause. The plaintiff was stated to be
a Captain in the Dorsetshire Militia, and of a very respectable
and old family. The defendant was a founder residing in
Wilmington-square. Both were concerned in the direction of
" The Eastern Coast of Central America Agricuitural
Company."
Sir J. Pollock was Counsel for the plaintiff; but in his ab-
sence the case was opened by Mr. Rowe.
From the evidence adduced by the plaintiff it appeared that
he had some dealings in the shares of the above Company,
upon which he owed a balance of 2701. On the Bth March,
1836, the defendant Ale an affirmation in the Lord Mayor's
Court, upon which an attachment was issued against any
goods the plaintiff might have within the city ; it was placed
in the hands of the proper officer, but no goods were
found. On the 17th March the defendant made a second
affirmation—process issued, and was placed in the hands
of the City Marshal, and the officer went to the Bank Coffee-
house, where Mr. Gould being pointed out to him, he called
him out, and informed him of the writ which he held. The
Marshalman at his request sat down in the coffee-room, and
waited three hours, while some of the plaintiff's friends
were out looking for bail. They failed in their object,
and the plaintiff went to a lock-up-house, where he staid
for two days. Having then failed to procure bail, he
rendered to Wbitecross-street Prison. In the meantime he
employed an attorney to procure bail ; but as in the Lord
Mayor's Court the parties must be householders within the
City, he failed until he pledged the money for which he was
arrested. Eventually he came out of prison on the 22d of
March. The defendant set the cause down for trial, but on
finding that he could not maintain the action, being a part-
ner with the plaintiff, he withdrew the record. The plantiff
set the cause down for trial by proviso, and as the defendant
did not appear the verdict was for the plaintiff. The costs
were taxed and paid by the defendant.
Mr. THESSIGEIt addressed the Jury for the defendant. He
contended that they could not give damages against the de-
fendant, for the plaintiff had most signally failed in proving
the 'slightest tinge of malice in any of the proceedings taken
by him. The gallant Captain seemed to acknowledge that
the money was due to some one, but he could not possibly
find out to whom he was to pay it. The question was, had he
ever made any inquiries on the subject? Had he ever asked
himself the question, as an honourable man would have done?
That did not appear ; but the gallant plaintiff appeared to
fight as well with the law as with the sword, for finding out
that Mr. Barrett being a brother Director, and of course a part-
ner, he had no right of action against him, he not only got his
costs, but brought this action, which proved to him ( Mr T.) that
the malice was all on one side, and not on the defendant's. The
money was due to some one. Why did not Mr. Gould, as
the representative of an old family, as a man of honour, find
out to whom it was due—not a very difficult matter generally?
Did he do so ? No ; but finding some of the loop-holes of the
law in his favour, he seizes upon them, and turns round with
bitterness upon the defendant. He ( Mr. Thessiger) hoped
the Jury would disappoint tile plaintiff, in his present specula-
tive action.

The Learned JUDGE having summed up the evidence, the
Jury, after a few minutes consideration, returned a verdict for
the defendant.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.

William Prime was indicted for embezzling and stealing,
on the 15th May, in the parish of St. Luke, Chelsea, the
sum of sixpence, the property of Henry David Eggleton.
The prosecutor stated that the prisoner lived with him for
four months, in the capacity of pot-boy. He did not sleep in
the house, and was in the habit of taking out beer. One cus-
tomer, named Reynolds, took beer from him, but the prisoner
bad not accounted for the money he had received since the
25th March. Mary Anne Reynolds deposed that she paid the
sum of sixpence to the prisoner, which was part of an account
which bad been due to the prosecutor. The prisoner left his
service on the 19th May, and the prosecutor was not aware of
the money being paid, until he sent in his bill. The prisoner
was i❑ the habit of selling beer, but there was no account
kept in a book.
The RECORDER told the Jury it was a very vague charge, as
the prisoner might, or might not, enter whatever quantity he
had sold. Vtrdict—Not guilty.

The prisoner was again'indiCted for stealing and embezzling
a quantity of halfpence, the property of his master. The
prosecutor sent the prisoner to the shop of a person named
Wilkins, for the purpose of procuring white lead, oil, and
turpentine, which he brought back, but directed them
to be booked in the name of hiB master ; and that he would
call and pay for them in the course of the day. The
prisoner was apprehended in a neighbouring public-house with
all the money in his possession the same day, drinking with
another person.—Not Guilty.
Edward Dobree, aged 18, was indicted for stewing on the
sth of May, in the parish of Barking, a pair of trowsers, the
property of Edwin Melvin.
Mr. C. JONES appeared for the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner was an ap-
prentice to a fisherman, and, previous to going on a voyage
on the Dutch coast, the trowsers, which belonged to a fellow-
apprentice, was missed, and, as the prisoner had absconded,
he was suspected, and subsequently apprehended in Cromley.
The circumstances were not authenticated by the signature of
the Magistrate before whom he was taken, and the Jury,
under the direction of his Lordship, returned a verdict of—
Acquittal.