The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-10 00:00:00

A CASE OF DISPUTED IDENTITY.--A remarkable
case was part heard at the Manchester Court of
Record on Monday. It was an action to recover £5O damages
for the wrongful seizure of the plaintiff's goods and the loss
occasioned by the discredit thereby brought upon his
name. The parties to the suit were Joseph Moore and
Whitehead. Mr. Higgin said the only fact in dispute was
that which related to the identity of the plaintiff, who was
quite certain that he was Joseph Moore ; whereas the
defendant persisted in asserting, and still believed him to
be, ono Richard Vaughan, against whom proceedings had
been taken in the Salford County Court, and judg-
ment obtained for £l. About six years' ago the plaintiff
occupied a small shop belonging to the defendant. He
afterwards quitted the shop, having previously paid all the
rent and taxes due, and ultimately went to live in a
house near Strangeways. He was followed in the occupa-
tion of the shop before referred to by the mysterious
Richard Vaughan ; but the defendant persisted in asserting,
and still believed, that plaintiff had never left the shop at
all, and that he was the veritable Richard Vaughan, and
not Joseph Moore. Some time in the month of October,
1863, the defendant called upon the plaintiff, and made a
demand upon him for gas rent. His wife said her husband
did not owe any, and that all liabilities due when they left
the house had been discharged. The defendant obtained
a summons from the Salford County Court, addressed
to Richard Vaughan, and it was served on the plaintiff.
Mrs. Moore attended the court, and assured the judge
that her husband's name was Joseph Moore and not
Richard Vaughan, and that he was not indebted. The
judge thereupon referred the matter to Mr. Stevenson,
the high bailiff of the court, who, after making inquiries,
issued two summonses, one against Richard Vaughan and
the other against Joseph Moore ; but Vaughan did not turn
up, and eventually judgment, was issued against theplaintiff.
The defendant then sued for an execution, and accom-
panied the officers who were to levy the distraint.
Mrs. Moore satisfied the officials that her husband
was really Joseph Moore, but the defendant in-
sisted that he was Richard Vaughan, and urged the
bailiffs to distrain. The plaintiff's goods were accordingly
seized, and he was obliged to pay the claim to prevent his
furniture being sold in execution. He had been damaged
in his business, had lost all his lodgers, who were of a good
class, and was hooted after by children in the streets as
" the man who had the bum-bailiffs in his house." Mr.
Leresche said his client still believed the plaintiff to be
Richard Vaughan. Beth the learned counsel subsequently
agreed to take a nominal verdict for £5O, subject to argu-
ment before his honour on a special case upon the points of
law which would be raised. The Court accordingly directed
the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff for 450.
The Convocation of the Prelates and Clergy of
the Province of Canterbury was yesterday prorogued, in
the Jerusalem chamber, Westminster, by his Grace the
Lord. Archbishop.of Canterbury, Primate of all England
and Metropolitan, to Tuesday, the.l4th inst., on which day
a the CQUlcatim will aptHulgo at 11 richnk. •