The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-20 00:00:00

COMMON
_PLEAS.-(THIS DAY•)

(Sittings in Banco.)
DRAPER v. COUNT DE TORRI. h;cb
The COURT delivered judgment in this Case,
was reported in The Sun of Saturday last. The ee4
fendant, who it will be recollected was a Turkish
9 nobl4r,
man posiessed of considerable fortune, came to 01'
,
country and took up his residence in Grafton•stroet
Grafton-square. An execution was put into
ere
house at the instance of a person named Myl
an upholder and dealer in curiosities, who claimed
a certain sum of money from the Count, 9,,r1,
the plainiiff was one among several persons 1%;
entered the domain for the purpose of carrying the es,;o
cation into effect. Under the advice of the Colio'nf
solicitor they were all given into custody on a charge eve,
felony, on their attempting to remove a dining to
n,
They were locked up during the night in the statioo
house, but, on being brought before the magistrate oebe
morning, they wore discharged. An action was broeigbe
by the plaintiff Draper for false imprisonment, 1113°,0
recovered 201. damages. Mr. Sergeant Byles, a
Saturday last, applied for a rule to show cause of
there should not be a uew trial, on the ground so
surprise, the case not having been entered for trial 001
too late for the defendant to serve a rule for a sPecaV
jury, and also on the ground of damages. The Co ea
having deferred their decision until they had consil"o.
Mr. Justice Cresswell, now said that they had conOot
nieated with his Lordship on the subject. The eroeu•se
of damages might probably excite some little surehe
under the circumstances, but being a case in which „
party was taken into actual custody on a charge of feletTe.
it was clearly the province of the jury to decide
tba
compensation to which he was entitled. Though, up,
defendant had the advantage of the judge's summiol,o9
which seemed to lead to a different conclusion, it tier.
for the jury to exercise their judgment upon the end
Even supposing the Court thought the damages excecri
what might reasonably have been expected, thejectt
were bound to form a just view of the whole subs of
and, as it concerned the character and feelieaj.
an individual, they could not consider that sovely
verse verdict which was given upon a v
matter ex o lusiouee
within their jurisdiction. True it was, that the am__ or
of the verdict came just within the rule relative ',oile'
plications for new trials, but, seeing that a nevi_ofelt
would lead to further litigation and to an expense g'...toge
than 20/., they did not consider that any real advaru_,eot
would result to the defendant by acceding to the pee:ha
alication. lite Court v ere of opinion, therefor
there should be no rule.—Rule accordingly refused.
cAlliP v. rope. tee
Mr. SCOTT applied for a rule to show cause
"(rot
defendant in this case should not be dischargea,iol
‘,,u,tudy on the ground that the plaintiff was deasci_ade
had no legal representative. An application cabalthe
:n Trinity Term last year for the same purpos, ~icieat,
effidavit on that occasion was not thought ti
5 s to lb°
• ,ed the Chief Justice suggested that inquiries a
_rcty,
death of the plaintiff should be made of her
ate
at
do
and alto that a search should bens, and tile
Ductors' Commons. This had been ne,