The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-13 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, after Term, at Guildhall,
before Lord Chief Baron Pollock and a Common
Jury.)
HAMPTON V. CARDALE AND OTHERS.

This was an action for assault and false imprison-
ment. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and,
secondly, that they had probable and reasonable
cause for suspecting that the plaintiff had feloni-
ously stolen some lead.
Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., and Mr. Hance, were counsel
for the plaintiff ; and Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and
Mr. D. Keane for the defendants.

The plaintiff, James Hampton, was a builder at
Camberwell, and the defendants, Messrs. Cardale,
were a firm of solicitors carrying on business in
Bedford-row, and agents for the Rugby Charity,
which possessed considerable house property in the
neighbourhood of Lamb's Conduit-street. It ap-
peared that the plaintiff entered into a contract to
repair certain houses in New Ormond-street, and
on the 22d July last, while engaged upon the work,
a man named Milligan, who carried on the busi-
ness of a coachbuilder in Feathers-mews,
close by, asked him to look at the roof of his work-
shop, which let in the rain. He looked at the roof
and found the lead on the gutter decayed and full
of holes, and on reporting this to Milligan he re-
quested him to strip it off and relay the gutter with
new lead. Next morning the plaintiff and his men
tooK on. ' a up, end. were oa-u-mt re-
moving it from the premises, when a policeman in
private clothes came up and asked what they were
about. The plaintiff explained the orders he had
received from Milligan, but the policeman said he
could not allow the lead to be taken away, and it
was locked up in the workshop. A month after-
wards he and some of his men were taken into cus-
tody for stealing the lead, by direction of the de-
fendants, acting for the Rugby Charity, to whom
the premises belonged. They were locked up all
night, and on the case being brought before the
magistrate at Clerkenwell Police-court, remanded
for sev9ral days, at the expiration of which they
were all dismissed.
One of the witnesses called for the plaintiff was
Milligan, known by the soubriquet of " Long Jim,"
a man in the garb of a labourer, whose appearance
called forth the remark by the learned judge, that
he was not likely to be employed to build the Lord
Mayor's coach. He said he had occupied the work-
shop for two years, at a rent of 7s. a week, and did
odd jobs. The rain came in down the wall of the
upper room, but he never employed the plaintiff to
repair the roof. When that room became uninha-
bitable the defendants allowed him to remain in the
lower portion of the premises until they were pulled
down, without paying any rent. He had remained
there on trespass since January last. He was drunk
wholeo
to relay
of
thedayth when plaintiff said he gave
e lead, and could recollect
thhime
anorder
nothing he did. lie was unable to pay his rent, and
therefore could not meet the expense of repairing
the roof, and the plaintiff well knew that. The wit-
ness positively denied that he requested the plaintiff
to remove the lead.
Mr. M. Chambers, in his address on the part of
the defendants, said the reason why no proceedings
were taken against the plaintiff until some time
after the occurrence was, that they had in the first
instance to communicate with the trustees of the
charity, who had to determine what course should
be purued. The question was whether the case was
not one of such grave suspicion as to justify the
charge being made against the plaintiff, and he
thought the jury would be of that opinion after the
evidence of Milligan, who occupied the premises
entirely on sufferance and rent free, and who could
have no interest whatever in repairing the roof at
the expense of new lead. Besides, he turned out to
be almost penniless, and therefore unable to pay
the plaintiff after he had completed the job, as the
plaintiff himself must have well known.
The Foremen interposed,and informed the learned
judge that there was a very general opinion among
the jury upon the cage.

The Lord Chief Baron said the question was not
whether the plaintiff stole the lead, but whether
there were circumstances of suspicion to justify the
police officer interfering, and the subsequent pro-
ceedings of the defendants.

The Foreman—That is our opinion.
A brief consultation then took place between the
jurymen, and on its conclusion the foreman said that
one of their body wished to hear the remainder of
the case.

The Lord Chief Baron—ln mercy to the plaintiff
it is very desirable that some arrangement should be
made.

Mr. Hance said he thought the defendants ought
to withdraw the plea that a felony had been com
mitted.

_____
After some discussion between the counsel on
each side, it was agreed to terminate the case by the
withdrawal of a juryman.

CUUR'r OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
DERRY V. DERRY AND LAWRENCE.

Neither of therespondents appeared, and the jury
was merely sworn to assess damages, which were
laid at £2OO.

The marriage took place in March, 1859, the pe-
titioner being a baker in Judd-street, St. Pancras.
The co-respondent, who was a milliner and draper
in Chapel-street, Somers-town, soon afterwards be-
came intimate with the family, and the respondent's
sister subsequently
taking a situation as his house-
keeper. Mrs. Derry had many opportunities of
visiting him under pretence of going to see her
sister. In March last the respondent eloped from
her husband's house altogether ; and the co-respon-
dent furnished lodgings in which he cohabited with
her. As regarded the terms on which she had lived
with the petitioner, a charwoman said she com-
plained to her that she was very unhappy;
that
her husband had deceived her as two children which
he had had by a former marriage ; that he was
mean, and that she did not see life enough with him.
She alsolstated that she loved Lawrence's little
finger better than the whole of her husband's body.
The jury found a verdict for £250. This being
more than the amount claimed, it was reduced to
the £2OO.

The court made a decree nisi, with costs.

SYKES V. SYKES AND WOOD.
Pr. Swabey appeared for the petitioner. It was