The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-03 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCII.-(Tins DAY.)

PRAT; V. PTV ItToN AND MACARTIIY.
Mr. TnEssmatt, in this case, which was tried before Lord
Denman. at the last ii,..sizes for the county of Surre , when a
verdict Aas had against the def.ndatit Utterton, with 70/ da.
n
macreS, a d for the defendant Macarthy, moved for a rule to
she; cause why there should not be a new trial, so far as re-
spect. d the defendant Colonel Utterton, on the ground of
here being no evidence to fix Lim with the false imprison-
ment, which wa3 the cause of action, and al'o on the ground
that the damages were excessive. It was an action brought
against Colonel Utterton, a gentleman residing in the neigh-
bourhood of Croydon, and a person named Macarthy, a con-
gable, for the false imprisonment of the plaintiff, Peate, who
had been formerly in the service of the:defendact, Utterton, as
groom.' It appeared, from the evidence at the trial, that
in the month of February a robbery had been committed in
the stables of Colonel Utterton, apparently by some person
acquainted with the property there, because the saddle and
bridle taken belonged to a gentleman who had been visiting
at Colonel Utterton'sl and bad not been used for a considers-

ble time. They were, therefore, selected as not likely to
be called for. On tir r robbery taking place Colonel
Utterton sent for M.:cm-thy, and as he (Mr. Thes-
siger) contended, Macarthy, acting on no suggestion
and without any authority from Colonel Utterton, but merely
from his own view of the case, apprehended Peate, and com-
mitted the trespass which was the subject of the action. A
great number of declarations of M'Carthy, with repect to
instructions received for Colonel Utterton, were made in the
course of the trial, which of course could not be excluded, as
they were evidence against the former, although they could
not be considered evidence against Colonel Utterton, be not
having been present. It was impossible, however, to divest
the minds of the Jury of the impressions that had thus been
made. The Learned Gentleman then referred to the evidence
given at the trial, and concluded by submitting to the Court,
that as the imprisonment complaii,ed of had only lasted front
Monday evening till twelve o'clock of the following day, it
was evident the damages awaided, 701., were excessive.
Lord DENMAN, having conferred with the other Judges,
observed that the Court thought there was something in the
way of evidence to lix the defendant as the person by whom
the imprisonment had been brought about. The damages
might be thought considerable, but they had been awarded by
a Special Jury;_ and where serious injury was likely to arise to
the character of a person in the plaintitt's station, they were
not to weigh this species of compensation too nicely.—Rule
refused.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

CROFT V. EARL OF EGMONT.

Mr. WIGIITMAN moved for a rule to show cause why the
capias in this case should not he set aside and the outlawry of
defendant reversed; and that he be at liberty to enter a com-
mon appearance. Proceedings on an action for debt had been
commenced and carried to outlawry in July, 1828; but no
steps had been taken upon it from that time till the present
year, when the capias was issued; and the ground upon
which the application was made was, that in the interval (that
is, in 1835), the father of defendatt, the late Earl, died, leav-
ing defendant his heir-at-law, so that he had succeeded to the
Earldom. The Learned Counsel cited Briscoe v. Earl of
Egremont, Maule and Selwyn, 88, and various other cases
bearing upon the point.
Rule to show cause granted.
DAWES V. SALAMON.

An application was made for a rule to show cause
why defendant should not be discharged from arrest on
mesne process, in an action for debt. Under the clause
of the Imprisonment for Debt Act, which enacts that every
prisoner who, at the period for the Act coming into operation,
should be in custody on a mesne process, and should not have
filed a petition under the Act for Relief of Insolvent Debtors,
shall be entitled to dischare on entering a common appearance,
provided that be is liable to be again wrested, on the special
order of a Judge.—Rule granted.