The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-29 00:00:00

CIVIL SIDE.

(Before Mr. Baron Martin and Common Juries.)
EASTMAN AND WIFE V. ATTWOOD.
This was an action to recover damages for a tres-
pass and false imprisonment. The defendant ad-
mitted the trespass contained in the first count
of the declaration, and paid Lo into court as satis-
faction for the injury the plaintiffs had sustained.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Ribton were for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr.
Prentice for the defendant.

The plaintiffs in this action, it appeared, had
formerly kept the Bell public-house at Minster,
but they let it three or four years ago, and have
since kept the Masons' Arms, another public-house,
at Dover. It appeared that some time in last year
Mrs. Eastman happened by chance to be at Minster
upon business, and went to look at the " old
house," for which she said she always had a great
liking. She had some refreshment, and in the
course of conversaticn she introduced herself to the
defendant, who was then the landlord of the Bell,
os having been the former landlady, and he invited
her into the bar-parlour, and she went over the
se ; and the parties appeared to have parted
very good friends. Soon after she had left it
seemed that the defendant missed a mode-
rator lamp, and from some extraordinary cause or
other he appeared to have suspected that Mrs.
Eastman had taken it away with her; and, acting
upon this supposition he went before a magistrate
at Dover. and swore to an information by which
he alleged that he had reason to believe that a
lamp, his property, had been feloniously stolen,
and that it was secreted at the Masons' Arms, the
public house of the plaintiff. Upon this informa-
tion a search warrant was granted, and the defen-
dant and two policemen went to the plaintiffs'
house, and ransacked all the drawers and boxes,
but without finding any trace of the lamp; and
it subsequently turned out that the defendant or
his wife had sent the lamp to a tradesman to be re-
paired, or to have something done to it; and, as
was now represented on their behalf, that they had
forgotten the circumstance. The plaintiffs, it ap-
peared, had expressed their willingness to accept
Of an apology from the defendant, but as this could
not be obtained they were compelled to bring the
present action.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs,
with £2O damages.

GRIMES V. NORMAN.

This was an action of slander.

The declaration alleged that the plaintiff was a
plasterer and one of the churchwardens of the parish
of St. James the Apostle, Dover, and that the de-
fendant, who was also a tradesman at the same place,
and a churchwarden, had spoken certain slander-
ous words of him in his capacity as a churchwar-
den, and also in his trade.
Mr. Hawkins, Q C., and Mr. Garth were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Lash, Q. 0., and Mr. Biron, for
the defendant.

It appeared that the parties in this action both
resided in the town of Dover, and that in January
last some dispute took place between them, and a
good deal of angry feeling was exhibited by the
defendant towards the plaintiff. The circum-
stances that led to the present action were
these. Some boxes had been placed in
one of the churches at Dover for the recep-
tion of subscriptions from the inhabi-
tants for the poor, and also towards the build-
ing of a new church, and these boxes, there
was no doubt, had been forced open, and their con-
tents abstracted. A good deal of excitement was
created in the parish by the proceeding, and it ap-
peared that upon one occasion, while some of the
parish officers were conversing together in reference
to it, the defendant made a statement to the effect
that the plaintiff had robbed the boxes, and that he
had also defrauded the parish upon another occasion
when he was f?ngagec to do some repairs to one of
the churches; and this was the slander that was
now complained of. The only answer that was at-
tempted to be set up to the plaintiff's case was that
the defendant did net make use of the precise words
imputed to him, and he was examined and swore
that he did not do so ; but he at the same time
admitted that he had mae use of an observation to
the effect that a man who would do one thing was
likely to do another, and it also appeared that at
another interview, when the plaintiff wished for
some explanation or apology, the defendant was
very violent and excited, and said if be had done
Wrong he was able to pay for it.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
'Damages, £lOO.