The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-20 00:00:00

LAW. INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH-JAN. 19

CONSTANT DEBRA DE MERODA V. DAWSON, TINDAL,

PEYTON, AND RYLAND,

This was an action on the case brought by the plaintiff,
a young man of Hungarian family, against the four de-
fendants, who were residents of the town of Birmingham,
to recover from them compensation in damages for
having falsely and maliciously, and without reasonable
and probable cause, charged him with having, by false
pretences, obtained a sum of money from one of the de-
ftadants. The cause was tried before Mr. Baron Alder-
sox at the last summer assizes at Warwick, when it
appeared in evidence that the plaintiff had come over to
England in 1851, in order to see the Great Exhibition,
and that while here he had become acquainted with a
lady who was known as the Baroness Von Beck. This
lady had published a work, entitled "Personal Adven-
tures of a Lady during the late War of Independence in
Hungary." She had engaged to publish another work,
and for this new work she desired to get subscribers.
A considerable part of this work had been written,
and was in the hands of an English gentleman
for the purpose of being translated. Madame Von
Beck went down to Birmingham, and was there
introduced to Mr. Dawson, who, on reading her
papers of introduction, subscribed for her work,
and paid her the sum of 11. 4s. Through Mr. Dawson,
Madame Von Beck was introduced to the other defen-
dants, and especially became acquainted with Mr. and
Mrs. Tindal. She was received among them with
apparently the greatest kindness, and this kindness con-
tinued for between a fortnight and three weeks, till, on
one Friday night, when Madame Von Beck was a guest
at tie house of Tindal, one of the defendants, she was
suddenly apprehended on a warrant issued by a Mr.
James, a magistrate of Birmingham, on the information
of Tindal and Ryland. She was charged in the warrant
with the offence of obtaining money under false pre-
tences ; the false pretence being that she called herself
the Baroness Von Beck, without having any legal right
to that title. The present plaintiff, who had accom-
panied the Baroness and appeared to be her intimate
friend, was included in the charge, and was likewise appre-
banded. The Baroness,Von Beck, who had previously been
in a very poor state of health, and had been staying at
Tindal's house in consequence of indisposition, died
immediately afterwards. The plaintiff was taken before
the magistrates, where the charge against him was
heard, the defendants and a Mr. Toulmin Smith appear-
ing in support of it, but it was instantly dismissed.
When these facts had been proved evidence was required
to show the warrant, and to connect the defendants with
the issuing of it. This evidence was attempted to be
supplied by calling a policeman named Tandy, but he
stated that though he made the arrest, he did it in the
presence of his superior officer, and never had had the
warrant in his possession. The officer who had possession
of the warrant had not been subpoenaed, and the warrant
was not in court. Mr. Baron Alderson thought the evi-
dence defective in this particular, and that there was not
in the rest of the case enough to go to the jury to show
that the defendants had made the charge, though he ex-
pressed a clear opinion that the charge itself could not
be supported, for that there was a want of reasonable
and probable cause. His lordship nonsuited the plain-
tiff. In the course of Michaelmas term, Mr. Sergeant
Miller (with whom was Mr. Field) had btained a rule
to show cause why the nonsuit should not be set aside,
and a new trial granted on the ground, first, that the
plaintiff had been taken by surprise by the policeman's
evidence, and next, that even without the production of
the warrant there was enough to show that the charge
had been made, and had been made by the defendants.
Mr. Macaulay, Mr. Mellor, and Mr. Hayes now
showed cause against the rule. As to the ground of
surprise, they contended that that was answered on the
face of the affidavits put in by the defendants, which
showed that the person who on behalf of the plaintiff had
subpoenaed the policeman knew that the superintendent,
Stevens, was in possession of the warrant, for though
he had not subpoenaed Stevens, he had obtained from
that person a copy of the warrant. As to the other
ground, the insufficiency of the evidence to connect the
defendants with the issuing of the warrant, they insisted
that the evidence merely showed that the defendants had
made a statement before a magistrate, and did not show
that they had made a charge of obtaining money under
false pretences. If the magistrate thought fit to convert
their statement of facts into that substantive charge, and
to issue his warrant in that form, they could not be made
liable in this form of proceeding for his acts.
Mr. Sergeant Miller and Mr. Field were not called
on.

Lord Campbell said that the question for the Court
was whether there was any evidence to submit to the
jury, that the defendants, or any of them, had made this
charge against the plaintiff of obtaining money under
false pretences. If there was no evidence to go to the
jury on that point, the nonsuit was right, but if there
was evidence to that point, then the non-suit was wrong.
The learned judge here had very properly said that there
was no probable cause for making this charge. There
was therefore a want of probable cause, and from that
alone malice might be inferred. So that the two ingre-
dients for maintaining this action were here malice and
want of probable cause. The action was, therefore,
maintainable. He did not nay that there was strong
evidence of this. It was enough for the purpose of
this rule that there was some evidence to go to the
jury. Could it be doubted by any reasonable man,
from what was given in evidence, that a charge
was made by some one against the plaintiff for
having obtained money under false representation ?
There could be no doubt that some one did make that
charge. Then, was there not some evidence that that
charge was made by the defendants I As the case was
to be tried again, he abstained from entering minutely
into the evidence or into the question of the weight to
be given to that evidence, but he had no difficulty in
point of law that there was some evidence to go to the
jury against these defendants. The jury would have
said what interpretation was to be given to the state-
ments made before the magistrates. But the case was
withdrawn from the consideration of the jury by the de-
cision of the learned . judge, and the plaintiff was non-
suited on the ground that there was not any evidence to
offer to the jury. He thought that the case should have
been left to the jury. The jurymen might or might
not have found for the defendants; but as the case had
been withdrawn from their consideration, he thought
that a new trial ought to be granted.
Mr. Justice Wightman was entirely of the same
opinion. The only question for the court to consider
was whether there had been a charge of obtaining money
under false pretences, and if so, whether, as the charge
was made by some body, it was not made: by the de-
fendants. Taking the whole of the evidence together,
it seemed to him that there was evidence to go to the
jury on both points. If each part of the evidence was
taken separately, it might be said that there was not
enough on that part to make the defendants liable ; but
taking the whole together, there was enough to go to the
jury on the question whether the defendants had not
made this charge.

Mr. Justice Crompton concurred. The only doubt he
had ever entertained was, whether the court was tied up
to consider only the information taken before the magis-
trate. He thought that the court was not so restricted.
Rule for a new trial absolute.

BAIL COURT.--JAN. 19.
31ACKINTOSH AND WIFE V. MACKINTOSH AND ANOTHER.

ASSAULT.
Both the plaintiff and defendant were•railway contrac-
tors, and this action was brought for an alleged assault
by ;he defendants on the plaintiffs.
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Petersdorff were for the
plaintiffs ; and Mr. James and Mr. Pearson for the de-
fendants.

It appeared that on an evening in March last the de-
fendant, Hugh Mackintosh (a brother of the plaintiff ),
and a person called Mackay, went to the plaintiffs'
house, and having taken supper, and remained some
time, rose up to leave at half-past twelve o'clock, when
the defendant, Hugh Mackintosh, under the influence of
brandy-and-water, began to swear and seized the plain-
tiff's wife by the arms, using very disgusting language
towards her. She made her escape from him and
ran into her bed-room, when the plaintiff and the
defendant Mackay, who had been waiting below for
Hugh Mackintosh, came up stairs, and as soon as the
plaintiff entered the room he was assaulted by the de-
fendant, his brother, and Mackay, who inflicted such
severe injuries upon him that he was confined to his bed
for some weeks. His wife, who was in a delicate state
at the time, was also very ill after the assault, and their
doctor's bill and other expenses amounted to about 301.
It was urged on the part of the defendants that the
case of the plaintiffs had been greatly exaggerated. The
defendants stated that they had all spent the evening in
a very friendly manner ; but, as they were going away,
the plaintiff, Robert Mackintosh, took up a pocket-book
from the table and put it into his pocket. Hugh Mac-
kintosh
claimed it as his own, but the plaintiff refused
to give it up. He put his hand on the plaintiff's pocket
who thereupon hit it so severely that he had since lost
one of his nails. Both defendants denied having had
their hands on the female plaintiff.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff against Hugh
Mackintosh for putting his hand on plaintiff's pocket,
damages one farthing, and for the defendants on the
other part of the case.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-JAL 19.
JONES V. DOYLE.

This was a proceeding under the Small Debts Act,
arising out of extraordinary circumstances. lit de-
fendunt, a clerk in the Post-office, was summoned to
show cause why he should not pay the plaintiff, an at-
torney, 161. 10s. on a judgment in one of the superior
courts.

From the examination of the plaintiff and defendant
by the Court, it appeared that the insolvent had rented
a small house in Lambeth, which he took of a Mr. Por-
ter, who was solicitor to a lady named Hart. A claim
of 16s. was made on the house by the Rev. Mr. Daitem,
the rector of Lambeth, under the Tithe Commutation
Act, as a rent-charge. The insolvent was out of
town, and the members of his family did not pay
the money. He alleged that he only owed Bs. as the
rent-charge, which was one year's rent as tithe-charge.
An action was brought against the insolvent, and
the expenses were 141. 10s. Subsequently, proceedings
were taken to get possession, and the sheriff turned the
defendant and his furniture into the street. The articles
were put into a waggon, and in the care of some neigh-
bours, until a house could be taken. Being in posses-
sion, the rector, under the 6th and 7th Wm. IV., was
entitled to hold the land until he was paid. The de-
fendant was anxious to get possession in order to give
it up to his landlord, and so get rid of his liability. It
was agreed between the attorney (Mr. Jones) and the
defendant that he should give a promissory note for
161. 10s., and pay 21. 10s. in cash. The note was given,
which was to be paid at 21. per quarter, but no further
payment had been made. Mr. Jones then brought an