The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-01 00:00:00

COMMON COUNCIL.-(THIS DAY.)

A Court was held this morning for the despatch of city
business. As some discussion was expected op the subject
of the construction of new London•bridge, the Court was
fully attended. Among the notices of motion on the paper
was one " to consi ler the report of the London-bridge
Committee, relative to the bridge, and for forming a new
street from the East end of Cannon-street, to the West
end of Cornhill."
Some discussion took place upon a notice of a motion,
given by Mr. WILLIAMS, to the effect, as was understood,
that no citizen should be a member of the Court, who
had been bankrupt, or had not paid 20'. in the p und.
Mr. Roam considered it of the highest importance
that the standing orders relative to this subject should be
considered. The future respectahility and character of the
Court depended upon an immediate decision. He hoped
the Lord Mayor would call an early Court to consider the
question.
A petition was presented from merchants, traders, and
others, residing east of London-bridge, praying that some
wider approaches might he made to the new bridge.
Owing to the narrowness of the streets in the direc-
tion alluded to, particularly Little Eastcheap, and
the great increase of the traffic between the St.
Catherine, London, and other Docks, and the West
end of the town, great inconvenience had arisen. Since
the passage over old London-bridge had been stopped the
greatest inconvenience had been experienced, and he
hoped that the London-bridge Committee would consider
the necessity of giving to the merchants and others a bet-
ter means to carry on the great traffic which exists with
the docks. He hoped the Court would refuse every appli-
cation to Parliament for further powers to make ap-
proaches to the bridge, unless the prayer of the petition
was complied with.
The petition was referred to the New London-bridge
Committee, for them to consider the subject, and report,
after some remarks from other members of the Court, on
the great injury done to the cattle, property, &c., by the
crowded state of the narrow streets east of Graceehosch-
street.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.,

ROSS V. SHAW AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
compensation in damages fora false imprisonnient, and in-
jury done to his character, in being publicly arrested and
taken through the streets in custody as a felon. It ap-
peared that the plaintiff was charged by the defendant
Brown with horse stealing, on which charge he was im-
prisoned all night and taken before a magistrate next
morning, where the case was supported by the defendant
Shaw. The magistrate, however, dismissed the ch trge,
and discharged the plaintiff, at the same time telling him
that he had a good ground of action against the defendant.
These facts were proved by three witnesses.
The defence set up was that the defendant Shaw had a
horse in the stables of a person named Bailey, who had it in
use. Shaw had said to the present plaintiff, who is a
hackney-coachman, that when Bailey was done with the
horse he might have it for his keep for a while. The
plaintiff accordingly took the horse from Bailey's stables
without further leave from Shaw, and he being advised
by Brown, who was a constable, had Ross arrested on the
charge of stealing the horse and harness. The matter
was settled on condition that Ross should pay for the
hire of both. Brown, however, was not satisfied, but had
the plaintiff up before the Magistrate, when he was dis-
charged in consequence of Shaw's not appearing.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in reply contended that, if
Shaw had not made the charge, Brown would not have
arrested the plaintiff, and of course both were liable.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up, the Jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 301.