The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-29 00:00:00

This was an action for an assault and battery,
argued last term upon demurrer to pleas, and in
which judgment had been deferred. The alleged
assault was committed by the defendant, Lord Sey-
mour, upon the plaintiff at Naples, and the defen-
dant pleaded several pleas, which raised the ques-
tion whether this Court had jurisdiction in the case,
the acts complained of having been committed in a
foreign country.
The Lord Chief Baron, in delivering the judg-
ment of the Court, said it was concluded by the
authorities that the circumstance of an assault and
battery having been committed in a foreign country
was, in itself, no impediment to an action being
maintained for it here. Had it appeared that by
the law of that country an action was maintainable
for it there, ho thought that none would be here,
and this raised the first question—what was the
meaning of the first plea ? The defendant argued
that it meant that proceedings to punish him had
been taken in Naples, and that, except those pro-
ceedings, none could be taken, and that, therefore,
none could be taken to recover damages; but they
held that it meant that proceedings had been taken
in the Neapolitan court, and, except those, none
could be maintained. If so, it did not negative
that these were proceedings in which compensation
in damages might be recovered, This, then, was a
wrong for which an action would lie here, and for
which it might be assumed one would lie in Naples,
and it was no defence to the present action that
proceedings at the instance of the plaintiff were
pending in the Neapolitan court. It could be
no defence at bar, nor an answer even in abate-
ment of the writ, that an action was pending
here in an inferior court, and how in Jaw
or reason could it be when it was pend-
ing in a foreign court, and when the action
was in no sense local ? The case of " Cox v. 'Mit-
chell" was an authority to show that an action pend-
ing abroad for a wrong was no ground for staying
proceedings in an action in England. For these
reasons they thought that the plea was bad. The
two other pleas demurred to alleged that by the law
of Naples, until the defendant had been criminally
condemned, no other action could be maintained for
damages, and that he had not been condemned.
This, however, was a mere matter of procedure, and
furnished no defence to the action. Supposing a
man in England stole a chattel and went to New
York, would it be reasonable that the tribunals there
should refuse to entertain the suit of the owner of
the article against the thief till there had been a
prosecution here ? Before the Extradition Treaty
such an objection would have been preposterous, and
it was not really less so now. For these reasons the
Court thought that the pleas wore bad, and gave
judgment for the plaintiff.
Judgment for plaintiff.
WELLOCK V. CONSTANTINE-SEDUCTION.

This action against the defendant, a farmer, for
the seduction of the plaintiff's daughter, aged 23, a
servant in the defendant's service, was tried before
Mr. Justice Willes at York, and resulted in a nonsuit.
Mr. Price, in now showing cause against a rule to
set aside the nonsuit, said it appeared from the evi-
dence that the defendant, when his wife was away
from home, went into the young woman's bedroom
and forcibly violated her person, and that she after-
wards gave birth to a child. She was examined at
the trial, and, according to her statement, the de-
fendant had been guilty of a rape. The learned
judge held that it was a case fora criminal court,
and not one for damages in a civil suit, and non-
suited the plaintiff.
The Lord Chief Baron said the question was what
was the duty of a judge sitting in a civil court when
the evidence of a trial of this sort went to prove a
felony.
Mr. Overend submitted that the learned judge
ought not to have withdrawn the case from the jury.
Mr. Jones having been heard on the other side,
Upon the suggestion of the court, it was agreed
that the case should stand over, to see whether th©
parties would consent to enter a stet processes.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron Wilde
and a Common Jury.)
MOSLEY T. CLEMENT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a
pugilist, against the defendant, the publisher of
Bell's Life in London, to recover the sum of £25,
money staked by him with the defendant. The de-
fendant deni©d his liability.
It appeared that a prize-fight took place between
the plaintiff and a man named Kenwick, in Decem-
ber last, for £5O. They both staked £25 with the
editor of Bell's Life. The fight was not decided, a
foul blow having been given, and the plaintiff there-
upon applied for his share of the stakes, but ho there-
upon found that the whole amount had been paid
over to the other side. The question turned upon
whether the defendant had received two letters of
the 7th and 10th January last, giving him notice
that the plaintiff claimed his share of the stakes.
For the defence several witnesses were called to
prove that the letters were never received.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
GEORGE V. SHEPPARD.

This was an action for slander. The defendant
pleaded not guilty.
It appeared that both the plaintiff and defendant
were attorneys of the City. General Pemberton
having been mixed up in some manner with a
loan society, gave the plaintiff a written retainer
under the seal of the company, but shortly after-
wards he changed his mind and employed
the defendant to act for him and to wind up the
the affairs of the company. An application was
then made to the plaintiff for the books and papers
of the company which he had, and which he refused
to deliver up, on the ground that he had a written
retainer signed by the General. The defendant
Upon seeing the paper, alleged that the signature
had been forged and that the plaintiff was the
forger. The plaintiff now alleged that he had
been damaged in reputation and business.
For the defence the defendant and General Pem-
berton swore that the expressions imputed were
never used,

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

THE BARK ROBBERIES IN THE CITY.

At the Mansion-house, yesterday, two Americans,
giving the names of John Weston and Wm. Harper,
supposed to be fictitious, and charged on suspicion
with being in the Bank of England and several
other banks in the City of London with intent to
commit felony, were again placed at the bar before
Mr. Alderman Finnis, who sat for the Lord Mayor,
in the custody of Michael Haydon, the detective
police-officer, to undergo a further examination. i
The prisoner Weston, twill be remembered, also
stands accused of stealing a bag containing £27
4s. 11d. from the counter of the Unity Bank, and
both prisoners are farther charged with stealing a
Bank of England note for £lOO from the Bank of
Messrs. Mestere:lan, in Nicholas-lane.
The examination was conducted by Mr. Mullens,
solicitor to the Bankers' Protection Association ;
and Mr. Wontner defended the prisoners.
Henry Morris, a respectable-looking lad, about
16, in the service of Mr. Henry Meyer, a cigar
maker, in Great Prescott-street, was first called.
He said—On Saturday week, between one and two
o'clock, he was in the Unity Bank, in Cannon-
street. There he received £4O 4s. 11d. from one
of the cashiers, £l5 in silver, and the rest in
gold. Ho counted the gold first, and putting it in a
bag, screwed it up, and laid the bag near him on the
counter. He began counting the silver, and while
he was so engaged a tall man, whom he now recog-
nised as the prisoner Weston, leant over him on the
left side, near which witness had placed the bag.
Directly afterwards the prisoner passed behind him,
and coming to his right side asked him if he knew
whether they changed Irish notes there. He said he
did not know, and continued counting his money.
After he had counted the silver he missed the bag of
gold. The prisoner Weston had then gone. No one
else had been near witness on the left sido. On mis-
sing the bag he immediately mentioned the circum-
stance to a cashier in the bank. He next saw the
prisoner Weston on Wednesday last at the Bow-lane
police-station. He was shown into a room where
several people were, and among them he picked out
the prisoner as the man he had seen in the bank.
By Mr. IV ontner—He had not missed his money
before the prisoner came to his right side. One other
gentleman, a Mr. Crowder, whom witness knew,
was at the counter, but no one came near witness on
the side where the bag of gold lay but the prisoner.
Mr. Crowder, of the firm of Rose and Crowder,
shipwrights, Wapping, said—l was in the Unity
Bank on Saturday afternoon when the boy Morris
was counting his money, and I saw the prisoner
Weston there. I heard the prisoner ask if he could
change some Irish bank notes, and thinking he
addressed me I said I thought not, but I would ask
the clerk. I did so, and was told in the hearing of
the prisoner they'did not change such notes there,
but that change could be got for them at Spielm an, s,
the bullion dealers, in Lombard-street. The Prisoner
left, and I followed him out. Outside I said to him
I thought he was a stranger, and if he would allow
me I would show him Spielmann's shop, which I
should be passing. We walked across Cannon-street
together. I was about to go up St. Swithin's-lane,
when he turned as if to go along Cannon-street. I