The Sun.
London, England, 1825-07-20 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.

WRIGHT v. COURT AND OTHERS.
This was an action of trespass brought by a labourer reSalil
at Redditch, in this county, against the Deputy Constableao
that place, for imprisoning the plaintiff without any reasorTiw
or lawful cause, to which the defendants pleaded Not tt
on which issue was joined, and also several special pleas Ps
Eying the arrest on suspicion of felony, to which there wag
demurrer, which is not yet decided. re'
The plaintiff's case was stated by Mr. Cuawoon, whe.oa,
presented it as one of considerable hardship and oppres',,,at
The plaintiff had been taken and imprisoned without wa,r7ra:
for three days; he had then been examined before a Alst
strate on pretence of felony, but no evidence appeared ago'
him ; and yet, because there was no evidence, he had Deoi,
remanded till the Monday or Tuesday. Now, when here„
lected who the Magistrate was who thus acted, and whe'r,s.
found that a search in a wood was connected with the trap 0$
tion, he could not help suspecting that the plaintiff was `"00•
dealt with, not because he was a felon, but because lie was c
sidered a poacher. .$5
Mr. Baron GARROW checked this line of observation' as
the conduct of the Magistrate (Lord Anson) was notti°7,
och
issue, and as the question was solely on the legality of $
' detention as the constable must answer for.
The imprisonment was proved by a witness named ‘3143,,,0-•
Cousins, who lived in a room over the place used as 3 ten:14110
rary prison, and in which the plaintiff was confined-
rSA,
proved, that between one and two in the morning of Thil,7;lit
November 4, Court and the other defendants brought Wl4.e.
to the prison, which she described as damp and uncoltu be.
able, and left him there till Saturday, when he was taken ao
fore Lord Aston, and remanded till Tuesday, on whichl that
he was again examined, and discharged. She also 54'his
,
since the action was brought she had heard Court exPreso sit
determination to ruin the family of the Wrights', and t„ics4'
months to leave them without a bed to lie on. She Was, - boY
examined as to a conversation between the plaintiff and n
who was related to him, on the night of his conarnitruel?4, b
he
at
asked if lie did not say that the officers had found notiun,°„t
his ferrets, as he had taken care ; but she persisted t•Ll:slie
merely said `'the officers had found nothing," and thn`
had never given a different account of the dialogue. • eidict
Mr. JEavzs, for the defendants, admitted that a v so
must pass for the plaintiff; but contended that, inasratldO
the constables had acted bona fide and oa reasonable gwidie
of suspicion, they ought only to be visited with noiniaa got
mages. To substantiate this defence, he proved that at tie
several times in the four months preceding the tresrslbt,
manufactories in Redditch had been broken into in t 7011'
and large quantities of needles and fishhook, finished 101,101.
finished, stolen. On the 3d November, a person named' i7iFt)
nett was taken into custody, and made some disclosures, 70,
could not be given in evidence, in consequence a yin, di;
meeting of the prosecuting association was convene of?
evening. At this meeting it was resolved, .that the lintijAd
man named Crowther should be searched, and alti•O'
being made to Lord Aston, for warrants to search `0,1,‘
other places, they were granted, and put into Court's_i3Oh it,
Court, thus authorized, took with him assistants, o.lstroile
could not that night search the house, determined totoilt
in order that no property might be conveyed away. 01411434 a
in the morning, Wright was observed to come froth i"tole'4•.l,
in company with Crowther, and after some conversatiOl be
him and proceed to the neighbourhood of a wood. •,;(1
taken by Court and the other defendants, and convele4o,o,o
prison, no warrant having been issued for his apprehea:oo,'"og
detained till Saturday, when he was examined and 70011;$
till Monday, upon which day, and not on Tuesday,
to the testimony of Lord Aston, he was discharged. C,,,P'e
house was searched, but nothing was found to justify wroel„.lis
cion which had been excited. Mr. Robinson, the att°,goi
the defendants, contradicted Sarah Cousins as to that 170. b,
evidence which referred to the conversation in the fnls ortap.
Lord Aston, being called to prove that he issued the fhila
warrants, said that he had destroyed the inforto!'-eil,
other papers, which he considered useless ; and explain,soo,,
he remanded the plaintiff under expectation that evideon'ted for
be produced, as much alarm had been caused by retied ,s
• fir,
beries. ',,'ect
Being questioned by Mr. CURWOOD on this Suq,„tioa,„,
some sharpness, his Lordship complained of the insinli;plV:
the Counsel, that he was actuated by a suspicion that c
tiff was a poacher.
Mr. Cu swoon—My Lord, I must do my duty , • of
Lord Aston--You have done it a little roughly, ,Anotan
Mr. Baron °ARROW interposed, and said he wouT,„ess
this kind of conversation between a Counsel and a
The Learned JUDGE took a view of the whole olfilo- taco
ously with a feeling that the defendants had acte,titighttvi
and without malice. He directed the Jury, if they W„epsi;,o
view correct, to give the plaintiff a moderate COt.rgred P;il
for the injury lie had sustained; but if they eunst
Court was actuated by a malicious motive, to give the p far
ample damages. yerelet
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned . •
the plaintiff—Damages 5L

WINCHESTER ASSIZES, JULY 10' ht
THORNTON V. WARD, ES Q. 010,
The plaintiff, a civil engineer, resident at HayanL ,pc
this action against George %% Esq., of Nort—h
bc.dipiroi
in the Isle of Wight, to recover 9001. and upwards, A.'
plaintiff claimed as due to him for erecting a wharf 07
a dock, at Cowes. It appeared from the opening tncewria
Williams, the plaintiff's Counsel, that the expected e'''''-estii„,pi
that the whole work had failed. The Learned Jue; re?,
the cause, suggested the propriety of a reference, 4,411-AOO,lO
declined, not only by the defendant's Counsel ori":41
ply
but by the defendant himself, who stated ( opt
deference to his Lordship) his wish to have t,, csieo
of the Court and the Jury on the facts of
although, if that should be that the plaintiff was el'athie r:stl6
thing, the question of amount might be referred.
tiff's case having been gone through, a suggesti°ll,
from the plaintiff, to Which the defendant instant4.olo,ol
and, to the satisfaction of all parties, a juror wits ~WO,l rtY:iie#
by which the plaintiff gave up his demand, and eac''
pay his own costs. By this all differences between,it
are at an end, a result honourable to both—to the„,:t4,e%rbe'ficel'
at once withdrawing without puffing in at delen— 't
found his claim untenable, and to defendant fora c°- 05-41
txd.' 'Mr
ing, although tenacious of right when it is contes,
not to press when that right has been admitted.--i '-
Paper.
- • t 5
f 11° V°.
In • • Lot,sequenee of tile disgruce.ti
Whitecross-street, and its vicinity, the Staff of the PO4- re.
don Militia have been on duty ever wince, at their 'hoe °I: p4ters, Bunhill-row, in order to be in readiness, to c.ipesve
petition of such disagreeable scenes as We". WI
Sunday evening.
9to oil
Last week, a woman happening to Pa!„thictl.„A tr.
a field near Bruff, in the county of Limerick, in ,""is re.,l)lo'
was, was gored to death by the animal ; and wAa..Ol
able, she was on her way to the Sessions, w P..
owner of it for an assault.

tbi
Printed and Published for the PROPRIETORS+ir ;00
°MICE, No. 112, Strand, by J. 13. Cell-