The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-16 00:00:00

PRIEST V, WARREN.

This was also an action for slander. The declara-
tion stated that the plaintiff was an unmarried
man, and that the defendant said of the plaintiff
" He is a married man, and that woman (meaning
a woman of immoral character) is his wife, and
those two women (also bad characters) are his
daughters, and he is living in adultery with them."
The declaration also stated that he visited a house
of ill fame with them. The defendant pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Littler was counsel for the plaintiff; Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Francis
were counsel for the defendant.

.• _
The plaintiff is a boot tree maker, residing in the
Walworth-road, and the defendant is a butcher, also
residing in the same neighbourhood. The plaintiff
claimed special damages.
The first witness called was Wm. Gillett, a dyer.
He refused to be sworn unless his two days' expenses
were paid. The plaintiff's solicitor tendered him
55., which he indignantly declined to take, saying
that dock labourers were paid more a day than that.
The solicitor then was told that he had a right to
ss. a day. The 10s. were then given to him, which
he pocketed with much satisfaction, and was then
sworn. He deposed that he never heard the defen-
ant say anything of the plaintiff. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins (the defendant's counsel)—Mind, no
money returned. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice—Have you put your best
witness forward, Mr. Littler?
Mr. Lit tler—l am afraid so, my lord, and that the
plaintiff will have to be nonsuited. (Laughter.)
James Jennings, another witness, was called, and
he gave a similar answer to the learned counsel's
questions.
W. Bush,collector to the Fishmongers' Company,
to whom the plaintiff is a tenant, deposed that on
coming out of the plaintiff's house one day he acci-
dentally met the defendant, who said to him, " Why
do you keep that man in the house with his
daughters ? they are not women of moral character."
The matter was investigated by a committee of the
Fishmongers' Company. Defendant said to witness
that he had received a lawyer's letter about it, and
he supposed it was with a viem to extort money from
him. Defendant afterwards said the witness had
wrongly represented what he (defendant) had said
to him.

Mr. Hawkins submitted that the words sworn to
were not actionable. They were at variance with
the declaration.
The Lord Chief Justice said the words sworn to
were not actionable, and he could not amend the
declaration.

Mr. Littler-said this action was brought on Bush's
information, and the other witnesses could have
given evidence in support of the plaintiff's case. The
only manner in which plaintiff could at all account
for the slander was that he had let part of his house
to a woman and her daughters, who gave satisfac-
tory references, but who turned out to be immoral
characters, and he got rid of them.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited.
SECOND COURT.

-- -
Sittings at Nisi Plius—(Before Mr. Justice Wight-
man and a Common Jury,)
THOMAS V. RAYS.

The plaintiff in this case was a printer in Tavis-
took-street, Covent-garden, and the proprietor of the
Theatrical Observer, and the defendant was a
gentleman popularly known as Capt. Morton Price.
The action was brought to recover £lOl, balance
of an account for printing for the defendant a book
called "A Trip for a Wager to America," and for
printing other things in relation to the dramatic
entertainments the defendant is in the habit of giv-
ing in different parts of the country.
The defence was that the amount claimed was an
(=cooly° charge, and the defendaut called wend

printers, who stated that they would have done the
work for £7O.

The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the
plaintiff for the amount claiin3.l.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex.—(Before Mr.
Justice Byles and a Common Jury.)
STEVENSON v. TOMKINS.—FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
The plaintiff in this case was a young woman, 18
years old, and at the time in question she was living
with her father in lodgings in the house of the de-
fendant, a milkman, in Orford-road, Marlborough-
street, Chelsea. She was given into custody by the
defendant on a charge of stealing a gold locket and
about 15s. in copper from out of his room, but hav-
ing been taken before a magistrate she was, after a
remand, discharged, and she now sued to recover
damages for false imprisonment.
The defendant pleaded a special plea, which
alleged that among the halfpence stolen there was
a halfpenny which was battered in a peculiar man-
ner ; that the door of the bedroom where the locket
and the halfpence were kept was usually locked,
but that some days before the charge was made the
defendant's wife showed the locket to the plaintiff,
who admired it; and the defendant's wife then went
downstairs, leaving the door unlocked, and that the
plaintiff might have then committed the theft ; that
after the theft the defendant received information
that the battered halfpenny had been in the pos-
session of the plaintiff's brother, a boy 8 years old ;
that the boy, on being questioned, stated that he
had picked it up in his father's room, and that the
plaintiff told him she had dropped it; that the plain-
tiff on being questioned said that her brother had
told her that he had seen a strange woman go up
stairs, though the brother, when asked, denied this,
but said that the plaintiff had told him to say so.
When the brother made these statements in tte pre-
sence of the plaintiff she said he was a liar. Fur-
ther, that the policeman told the defendant that he
believed the plaintiff had been in the service of Mr.
Drury, and that after she left some articles, includ-
ing a gold brooch, was missed. In addition the plea
alleged that the plaintiff at the time of the theft
was in such poor circumstances that the father,
mother, brother, and herself all lived in one room.
Mr. ‘lntyre appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Hannen for the defendant.

A good deal of evidence on both sides was given in
reference principally to the plea of justification.
Mr. Justice Byles directed the jury that it was not
now imputed to the plaintiff that she had actually
stolen the property, the real question being whether
the defendant had reasonable ground for suspecting
her.

The jury were locked up to consider their verdict,
and after they had been absent about a couple of
hours they sent a note to his lordship to say that
they had not agreed, and never should ; but as the
plaintiff's counsel would not consent to their being
discharged, they remained in their room. In tha
course of about an hour after they came into court
and gave a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 405.

THE CONSOLS INSURANCE COMPANY V. NEWALL-

ACTION FOR DEPOSIT MONEY lITON SHARES.

This was an action to recover £125 for deposit
upon 500 shares in the plaintiffs' company ; and the
defendant pleaded, among other things, that he
had been induced to take the shares by fraud.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Merewether ap-
peared for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Giffard for the
defendant.

Evidence was given that the defendant, a pat-
tern designer at Leek, in Staffordshire, had exe-
cuted the deed of the company in the presence of
Mr. Hart and Mr. Rayner, two agents of the com-
pany, and had taken 500 shares in his own name
and 500 in the name of his wife. The deed pro-
vided that a deposit of ss. a share should be paid.
It was denied that any misrepresentation had been
made, or improper inducement held out to the de-
fendant to take the shares or sign the deed, and the
evidence of the defendant was generally denied by
anticipation.
Mr. John Newall, the defendant, was then called,
and said that he had been at one time a designer
of patterns for buttons, bat his present employ-
ment was that of " weigher." His firstlntroduc-
tion to Mr. Hart was in this way : he was sitting
after his work by the fire with his wife, when Mr.
Hart, a travelling agent, and also Mr. Rayner, the
local agent of the company, knocked at the 'door
and asked him to take shares. He said he would
have nothing to do with it, and that he had no
money. They asked to be allowed to come into
the house and show him the names of some persons
in the town, and having done this, he thought the
scheme was " well laid out." They said the com-
pany would pay 20 per cent., the same as the
Westminster Bank, and that it would pay a bonus
in a short time, and they " puffed it off" in what
they said. They showed him a book (the deed)
with names in it, and he signed it. Mr. Rayner
said if witness put his name in the book they could
get other names, because witness was known as a
steady hardworking man. Witness said he had no
money, but a person owed him £237 10s. ; and they
replied that only ss. a share was required, and he
could make up the difference on the 1,000 shares. Wit-
ness said that if he got the money he would take
the shares, but if he did not get the money, be
would not take the shares. They said—he should
think twenty times—that he need not mind sign-
ing his name, for- it would not bind him. He did
not know he was signing a deed, and if he had
known it, he would sooner have had his finger cut
off than signed. He had never got the money
which he lent to a relative, and he feared he never
should.

Mr. Justice Byles drew attention to the deed,
and to the fact that the place where the witness
signed was headed, " Schedules of signatures to the
foregoing deed," the first three words only being
upon the page which bore the names.
Witness continued—The word " deed," was never
mentioned, and he never said that he delivered it
as his deed. It was a "list of shareholders" he
was asked to look at. When the allotment was
brought by Mr. Rayner witness said he had not got
his money, and he should not take the shares ; but
Mr. Rayner said he must take them. He recollected
that " lords" and " esquires," and other high-sound-
ing names were mentioned to him as directors, but
he could not recollect whether that of Peter Morri-
son was one of them.

Cross-examined—His position at the mill was
one of trust, or he should not have remained there
23 years. He was a self-taught man, having been
at work since he was eight years old, and never
having been at school. He had learnt to write, and
had walked seven miles every Sunday for a time to
learn. He had never seen the prospectus of the
company before he signed, but he was told that half
the money was to be invested in Consols. He re-
collected executing a deed at the time of the rail-
way mania, when he was " juggled" out of some
money—Xso. He had had shares in the South-
Eastern Railway, and he signed a paper when
he sold them. He had had three shares
in the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire
line. He did not remember having had
anv other shares. When he was asked to take
the Consols shares, he was told that it was a great
favour to let him have them, and that they had
come to do him good.
To the Judge—Neither the title page of the deed
nor any part of the body of the deed was shown to
him when he signed.
Mr. Hart was recalled, and said that he showed
the defendant the title page, and also the first and
second pages of the body of the deed. When he had
signed witness said, " That is your seal, you must
put your finger upon it," and the defendant " deli-
vered" the deed in the usual way.
His lordship put several questions to the jury,
and they in answer said that they found for the
defendant upon all the issues.