The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-28 00:00:00

him to be further imprisoned for the space of one plaintiff's traveller might I rave exercised more care
week. in the transaction.
Henry Rollins, 28, Thomas Skirrett, 20, David DAVISON V WILDE.
Ashett, 28, and James Salisbury, 22, four private This was an action fo r false imprisonment an a
soldiers, were charged with a violence upon Rie:aard assault.
Williams. Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., an d Mr Prentice were coun-
Mr. Barrow prosecuted. sel for the plaintiff; Mr. Denman, Q.C., and Mr.
The prosecutor in this case is a labouring man Wood were for the defends; nt.
residing at Ripple, near Dover, and it appeared The plaintiff in this actio, nis a merchant in the
that on the night of the 9th of June he was awoke City, and the defendant is the proprietor of the
by the window of his cottage being broken. He Cafe de l'Europe in the Hay market. The transac-
went down and found the prisoners and some licn that we& the subject of inquiry took place
other soldiers outside his cottage, and on his lon the Derby night, and it appeared that the
plaintiff and some of his friends, who had been
inquiring what they wanted they attacked him,
beat him with their belts, and, according to the enjoy ing that great holiday, went to sup at the de-
prosecutor's statement, one of the party put his fender:Vs establishment. A Fienchman and some
hand into his pocket and robbed him of 68. 11d. other g, 9.ntlem en were also supping, and it appeared
The defence set up by the prisoners was that that a eta spute arose between the defendant and the
what had occurred was merely a drunken row, and I :Frenchma a upon the subject of the charges, and
they had no intention to commit a robbery. some angry w ords passed, and there was a threat
The jury, after some deliberation, returned a that the Frenchman should be locked up. The
verdict of not guilty. plain tiff and his friends, thinking that the French-
-a. The prisoners Salisbury and Skirrett were then man had been aggrieved, interfered, and said they
charged upou another indictment with a robbery, would see him righted, and this increased the dis-
accompanied by violence, upon Richard Jones. turbance. The Frenchman eventually left, and.
Salisbury was also charged with assaulting Charles upon a policeman, who bad been sent for by the de-
Freed, one of the county constables while in the fendant, arriving, the plaintiff was given into his
execution of his duty. charge for creating a disturbance, bat on the matter
This robbery, it appeared, was committed on the being investigated on the following morning by
same night of the former occurrence. The prose- Mr. Knox, the magistrate at Marlbororegh-street
tutor is the landlord of the Plough public-house Police-court, the charge was at once dismissed, and
at Ripple, and the prisoners and some soldiers went the present- action was then brought by the plaintiff.
there and created a disturbance, and when he in- At the close of the plaintiff's case the learned
terfered the prisoners attacked him with their counsel on bath sides had a conference together,
belts, and knocked him down, and while he was and Mr. Demean then addressed his lordship and
upon the ground he was robbed of all the said that he was happy to inform him that it
money that was in his pocket. The prisoners got would not be necessary to proceed any further with
away, but they were followed by the police shortly the inquiry, as it had been arranged that the de-
afterwards, and when Freed, the constable, was fendant won ld express his regret at what had hap-
assisting to secure them they beat him in a most pened, and he would consent to a verdict to be taken
brutal manner, and the prisoner Salisbury struck against him and five guineas damages, and pay all
him repeatedly with the buckle of his belt. costs. The affair occurred on the erby night,
The Jury found the prisoners guilty of the rob• when, no doubt, all the parties were a little excited;
berg, and Salisbury was also found guilty of the but the defendant wished it to be understood that all
assault upon the police-constable, with intent to do imputations ninon the character of the plaintiff were
grievous bodily harm. withdrawn, and he' admitted that, being annoyed
Mr. Baron Bramwell, in passing sentence, said it at what the Freneliman said, he had acted hastily,
was most intolerable that soldiers, who were well and he now regretter' having done so.
provided for by the public, and whose duty it was Mr. Hawkins said that the plaintiff never had
to protect the public, should be guilty of these out- any desire to put mone v into his pocket, and his
rages, and he was determined to do all in his only object was to vindicate his character.
power to put a stop to such proceedings. He then Mr. Baron Martin said the course taken by the
sentenced Salisbury to three years' penal servitude defendant was a very prope r one, and it was satis-
for the robbery, and one week's imprisonment for factory to all parties.
the assault, observing at the same time that he A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff.
should have passed the same sentence of penal It has been arranged that the remainder of the
servitude if he had only been convicted of the lat- common jury cases shall be taken in their order, at
ter offence, as he considered it a very aggravating ten o'clock this (Monday) morning.
circumstance that he should have made use of his
belt, which was a most dangerous instrument. The
other prisoner, Skirrett, was sentenced to 12 months'
hard labour.
As the prisoners were leaving the bar, Salisbury
addressed his lordship and said, "All I have to say
is that I hope you may sit there till I come back."
Thomas Goss, 23, soldier, Henry Starr, 25, sol-
dier, Isaac Smith, 18, soldier, and Amos Walker,
24, marine, were charged with burglary.
Mr. Russell conducted the prosecution.
It appeared that the prosecutor was the landlord
of a beershop at Sheerness, and on the night of the
10th of July the house was broken open and various
articles stolen from the bar.
The jury aequitted Smith and found the other
prisoners guilty.
It was stated that they had said when they were
taken into custody that they committed the offence
in order that they might escape from " soldiering,"
and avoid going to India, where their regiment was
to have been sent.
They were sentenced to 12 months' hard labour.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Common Jury.)
CANDY V. SPENCER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to
recover the sum of £9l 7s. Bd., being the value of
certain goods which were alleged to have been
stolen by the negligence of the defendant.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. C. Pollock were
for the plaintiff; Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Jacob
for the defendant.
This case involved a question of some considerable
importance to innkeepers and the public. The
plaintiff is a silk warehouseman, carrying on busi-
ness in Watling-street, and the defendant and his
family have for a great many years carried on the
business of the Mitre Hotel, in this town. On
the 12th of May last, which is Maidstone fair
day, it appeared that Mr. Perman one of
the plaintiff's travellers, went to the Mitre
in the course of his journey, having with him
several packages of goods as samples, and one
among them contained a quantity of valuable silk
for ladies' dresses, and which was represented to be
worth the sum claimed by the present action. All
the parcels were handed to the boots, and he, it
appeared, placed them in the lobby or entrance of
the hotel, and in the course of the day the parcel
containing the silk was stolen. The present action
was therefore brought to recover its value, it being
contended, on behalf of the plaintiff, that there was
negligence on the part of the defendant's servant in
placing a small article, containing valuable pro-
perty, in such an exposed position, and that the
defendant as the innkeeper was consequently liable.
Witnesses were called on behalf of the defendant,
whose evidence went to show that the custom at
the hotel was never to leave any packages in the
lobby except large and heavy ones that could not
easily be removed, and that shelves were placed in
the commercial room for the special purpose of small
packages being placed in them ; and it was also
proved that Mr. Pernsan had himself told the
boots to place the small package with the others, and
but for this direction it was said that the parcel in
question would have been carried into the commer-
cial room, where it would have been perfectly safe.
Mr. Baron Martin, at the close of the examination
of the defendant's witnesses, said he really could not
see that their evidence had in any way touched the
case that had been established for the plaintiff, or
what question he had to leave to the jury.
Mr. Lush submitted that the question ought to be
left to the jury whether the loss would have oc-
curred if the plaintiff's traveller had exercised pro-
per care and caution.
Mr. Baron Martin said it appeared to him that the
point suggested by the learned counsel had nothing
whatever to do with the case. The only question, as
it seemed to him, was, did the defendant receive aria
take charge of the goods of the plaintiff? And the
evidence for the defendant appeared to have made out
the plaintiff's case as far as this went. The servant
received the goods, and it was his duty to have taken
care of them, and if they were lost his master, the
innkeeper, was liable. If any one went into an inn,
and gave the servant his portmanteau, and he took
charge of it, the master was responsible if he lost it.
Mr. Lush reminded his lordship that there was
evidence that the plaintiff's traveller had directed
the boots to place the package in a dangerous posi-
tion, and that the usual course was to have placed
I such an article in the commercial room.
Mr. Baron Martin said he did not think this
made any difference.
Mr. Lush said he should certainly except to his
lordship's ruling, and he contended that it Was
clearly a question for the jury whether the plain-
tiff's traveller by his own negligence had not con-
tributed to the loss of the property.
Mr. Baron Martin said the learned counsel was
quite at liberty to address the jury on this point,
although he himself thought there was nothing
in it.

COUNTRY AS:

.1.,.. -

YORK-SATURDAY.
There was a fair show of wheat to-day, and last week's
prices were supported. Since la.st week the weather has
been decidedly more favourable, and the wheat plant looks
better. Oats and beans promise well. Barley has also ira.
proved, although stii.l backward.
Wheat, red s6s. to 608} Oats.... 22s to 26s
White do .60s ).`o 648 1 Beans 40., to 448
Barley .328 to 33s 1 Peas ....—s to —a
Malt, 64s to 66s per qr. rye, 34s per qr ; flour, 40$
to 42s per sack.

LE I CE STER—.S.I.ITunDAY.
he supply of wheat to-day at market was moderate,
and the prices of last week were exceeded by 2s to 3s
—White wheat, 60s to 65s ; red, 57s to 61s per 36 et.;
old red, —s to —s per 36 stone. barley was in limited de-
mand—grinding, 30s to 325; mah'ing, 36s to 40s per qr.;
oats, 25s to 30s per 24 stone. Bemis were a quiet sale—
new, —s to —s ; old, 40s to 42s per 38" stone.

NORWICH--SATURDAY•
The supply of wheat to-day was sca?cely so large, and
millers not being free buyers prices ware about the same
as last week. Flour easier. There was scarcely anything
passing in other articles.
White wheat 59s to 623 f Red wheat. 56s to 58s
Malting barley 405.t0 41s I Chevalier barley...37s to 40s
New do.. to —s I Oats..
Flour, 39s 6d to —s Od per sack from the miller.

NORTHAMPTON—SATURDAY.
The weather, since our last report, has had a most bene-
ficial effect on the crops. Oats and beans are looking well.
Best wheat, 55s to 595; seconds, 54s to 575. Barley
scarce, and at nominal prices—malting sorts, 38s to 39s ,-
grinding 308 to 35s per qr. Oats quoted at 24s to 32s
per 24 stone. Beans, 408 to 425; seconds, ns to 40s.

Mr. Lush consequently addressed the jury, and
he contended that there had been no negligence
established against the defendant, who appeared to
have done everything that could reasonably be ex-
pected from a person in his position to protect the
property of his guests. He also argued that the
loss had arisen in consequence of the traveller order-
ing the boots to place the package in question in
an exposed situation, and that the loss, therefore,
arose in consequence of his act, and not through any
negligence on the part of the defendant. He sub-
mitted to the jury that the servants at an hotel
were bound to obey the orders of the guests, and
that it might as well be said that an innkeeper was
responsible if a quest ordered the servant to place
his luggage in the street, as to say that he was so
in a case like the present.
Mr. Baron Martin, in summing up, said that the
jury must act upon the law as they found it to be,
and although it might appear a hardship to make
an innkeeper liable under such circumstances, still
they were bound to act according to the law. A per-
son in the position of an innkeeper had the duty cast
upon him of protecting the goods and. property
that were brought into his house by his guest,
and when once the goods were placed in his charge
he was bound to keep them safely.
.As to what
had been said about the traveller ordering b
the
ioots
to place the package in the hall, he thought t had
nothing to do with the case. A traveller
.had a
perfect right to tell an inn servant to place
lug-
gage, or any portion of it, in any particularce his
place,
and if it was wrong or dangerous to do so, the ser-
vant should say so to him, and it appeared to him
that the present case was the very one in which the
law considered an innkeeper to ne responsible. His
lordship concluded by stating that the only ques-
tions for the jury to consider were, whether the
goods had remained in the charge of the plaintiff's
traveller, or whether he bad been guilty of such
negligence as had occasioned the loss of them,
The Jury, after a short deliberation, found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, but at the same time said they
thought he ought only to have the actual value of
the silk, which it was arranged should be taken at
£7O. They at the same time said they thought the