The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-11 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

- --- - -
Sittings at Nisi Prius after Term at Guildhall. (Be
fore Lord Chief Baron Pollock and Special Jury.)

RICKETTS V. STONE—FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
This was an action for false imprisonment. The
defendant pleaded a justification.
Mr. Joyce and Mr. Kemp were counsel for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Raymond for the defendant.
The plaintiff was a young woman, aged 22, the
daughter of a publican in Clerkenwell,nand the de-
fendant was represented as a coaland corn merchant
at Taunton. On the 19th of Aug. last the plaintiff,
with the consent of her father, went with a young
man namt d Doughty to the Foresters' fete at the
Crystal Palace. Finding in the evening that the
railway station was greatly crowded, they went t(
the Anerley Arms station, with the view of getting
back to town earlier, but here also a large crowd had
assembled, and they walked into the Anerley gar-
dens, where they remained until about 11 o'clock.
They then returned to the station, and while wait-

ing in the crowd the defendant got into conversa-
tion with Doughty, and complained of the delay in
running the trains. The defendant, who was accom-
panied by his wife and daughter, suddenly disco-
vered that his gold watch had been taken out of his
waistcoat pocket, and he accused the plaintiff and
Doughty of stealing it, and said he had felt the
plaintiff's hand in his coat pocket. They were taken
to the hotel and both given into custody for the rob-
bery. The policeman marched them off to the station
at Norwood, two miles distant, tied locked them up
all night. Next morning they had to walk to Lam-
beth police court, in company with several other
prisoners, and the magistrate, after hearing the evi-
dence, remanded them for a week. At the expira-
tion of that time, during which they had been con-
fined in Horsemonger-lane gaol, they were brought
up again and dismissed. Under these circumstances
the plaintiff brought this action in order to vindi-
cate her character. _ _

Ellen Ricketts, the plaintiff, a respectable look-
ing young woman, was examined in proof of the
above facts. She said she at once gave her address
to the defendant, and wished to be searched in the
hotel, but the policeman said that could only be
done at the station. She was prevented giving bail,
and was in prison a week. The amount charged by
her attorney for his services on the occasion was £4
103. She positively denied having put her hand in
the defendant's pocket.
Cross-examined—Neither my friend nor myself
pushed against the defendant in the crowd. The
defendant did not take hold of my hand while it
was in his pocket and pull it out. After he said he
lost his watch I saw his chain hanging down with-
out a watch at the end of it. _ _ _

Re-examined—At the police station the defendant
said he felt my hand in his pocket, but he did not
say he caught it there.
J. Doughty, a brass finisher, aged 24, and a
widower, corroborated the plaintiff's evidence. He
said he was a member of the ancient order of Fo-
resters, and had the permission of the plaintiff's
father to take her to the fete, which was attended
by 83,000 people. He said he tried to give bail, but
another magistrate was sitting when his solicitor
attended the court, and he refused to interfere in a
case which had come before his brother magistrate.
Upon cross-examination he admitted that as they
were walking to the station he said to the defend-
ant, " I have not got your watch, but I think I know
who has." He, however, explained that he saw a
man in the crowd ciose to the defendant, who deli-
berately turned round and walked away, and he
told the defendant that he thought that was the
person who took his watch.
The solicitor for the plaintiff said that Mr. Elliott
sat at Lambeth Police-court on the first three days
of the neek,and Mr. Norton on the other three days.
He applied to Mr. Norton to take bail for the plain-
tiff, but he declined to entertain the application as
he had not heard the case, and as Mr. Elliott did not
sit till the following Monday, when the remand ex-
pired, he took no further steps in the matter.
The Lord Chief Baron said he thought that was a
very bad arrangement. It was the usual etiquette
among the judges not to hear each other's sum-
monses, but th© humblest person in the realm could
apply to any judge to be liberated on bail, that
being a matter concerning the liberty of thesubject.
It was very much to be lamented that bail could
not have been taken in this case.
The witness said that when he made the applica li
-
tion he was prepared to offer the father of the plain-
tiff and several other persons as bail.
This being the case for the plaintiff,
Mr. Raymond addressed the jury for the defence.
He said the defendant did not accuse the plaintiff of
stealing the watch, and the only question for the
jury to consider was, whether he had a fair ground
to suspect, and bona fide believed at the time he
gave her into custody that she had been a party to
the robbery.
Mr. Stone, the defendant, who was very deaf, said
the young man Doughty, whom he had never seen
before, was in front of him in the crowd, and press-
ing very hard against him, so as to attract his at-
tention to his movements. He felt something in
the side pocket of his coat, and put in his hand,
when he found the band of the plaintiff. He said,
"What are you about ?" She replied, e I beg your
pardon, I was taking some sweetstuff out of my own
pocket;" but he held her hand until his daughter
came up. Immediately afterwards he missed his
•
watch, and suspected Doughty, as he had seen it