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

DOE DEM. JAMES V. JONES.

In this case the Court said there would be a rule to
show cause.
COBBETT v. SIR GEORGE GREY AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Baron PARKE said, in this case, though the Court
did not think it necessary to give a final opinion, they
would recommend the defendant's counsel to amend their
plea justifying the imprisonment. It did not state to
whom the attachment was directed, nor did it state by
what court it was directed. The defendants must amend
their plea in this respect within a week.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
DRAPER V. COUNT DE TORRI.
The COURT delivered judgment in this case, which
was reported in The Sun of Saturday last. The de-
fendant, who it will be recollected was a Turkish noble
man possessed of considerable fortune, came to this
country and took up his residence in Grafton-street,
Grafton-square. An execution was put into the
house at the instance of a person named Myers,
an upholder and dealer in curiosities, who claimed
a certain sum of money from the Count, and
the plainiiff was one among several persons who
entered the domain for the purpose of carrying the exe-
cution into effect. Under the advice of the Count's
solicitor they were all given into custody on a charge of
felony, on their attempting to remove a dining table.
They were locked up during the night in the station-
house, but, on being brought before the magistrate nest
morning, they were discharged. An action was brought
by the plaintiff Draper for false imprisonment, and be
recovered 201. damages. Mr. Sergeant Byles, on
Saturday last, applied for a rule to show cause why
there should not be a new trial, on the ground of
surprise, the case not having been entered for trial until
too late for the defendant to serve a rule for a special
jury, and also on the ground of damages. The Court
having deferred their decision until tbey had consulted
Mr. Justice Cresswell, now said that they had commu-
nieeted with his Lordship on the subject. The amount
of damages might probably excite some little surprise
under the circumstances, but being a case in which the
into party was taken actual custody on a charge of felony,
it was clearly the province of the jury to decide the
compensation to which he was entitled. Though the
defendant had the advantage of the judge's summing ups
which seemed to lead to a different conclusion, it Was
for the jury to exercise their judgment upon the matter.
Even supposing the Court thought the damages exceeded
what might reasonably have been expected, the jury
were bound to form a just view of the whole subject;
and, as it concerned the character and feelings of
nil individual, they could not consider that an ad-
verse verdict which %as given upon a matter exclusively
within their jurisdiction. True it was, that the amount
of the verdict came just within the rule relative to ar
plications for new trials, but, seeing that a new trial
would lead to further litigation and to an expense greater
than 204, they did not consider that any real advantage
would result to the defendant by acceding to the present
application. Ibe Court vs ore of opinion, therefore, tba
there should be no rule.—llule accordingly refused.