The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-13 00:00:00

COURT OF CIL4iVCERY, Dec. 12.

THE SHREWSBURY AND CHESTER RAILWAY COMPANY
V. THE CHESTER AND HOLASIE iD RAILWAY COM-

PANY; THE lIIRRENHEAD LANCASHIRE, AND CHESTER
JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY; AND THE LONDON
AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an appeal motion from the order of Vice•
Chancellor Knight Bruce, made on Wednesday last.
Toe case has been previously before the Court, and
the question at issue was as to certain rights claimed
by the different railway companies included in the
motion at the station in Chester. One of the principal
points was as to the right of the plaintiffs to having
omnibuses in the station for passengers, and on this
point the Vice Chancellor declined interfering, think-
ing the matter was properly one for the regulation of
the committee appointed by the different railway
companies above-named for the management of the
station, and from this part of the Vice-Chancellor's
order the plaintiffs appealed. His Lordship, after
noticing the arrangements and regulations laid down
for the management of the station, and also the lan-
guage used in the affidavits, was of opinion that the
order of the Court below must be reversed, and the
appeal allowed.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 12.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT—COPPLESTON V. DEAN.
Mr. Cockburn, Q. 0., with whom was Mr. Decent,
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Humfrey, Q.C., and
Mr. Lush were for the defendant.
Mr. COCKBURN stated the case. This was an action
for false imprisonment, and would never have been
brought by the plaintiff had the defendant made any
sort of reparation in the way of apology and regret
for the injury which plaintiff had suffered at his hands.
Plaintiff was a respectable young man, acting as town
traveller for Messrs. Grey and Robinson, wine mer-
chants, and in receipt, by his industry and abilities,
of three or four hundred a year. He was on intimate
terms with the family of the defendant, a wealthy
cheesemonger, residing in Great Tower-street, and
had formed an attachment to defendant's youngest
daughter. The attachment was honourable, and was
reciprocated by the young lady, who was 23 years of
age. Plaintiff was most anxious to marry Miss Dean,
although not desirous to take her from beneath her
father's roof until he could ensure to her those domestic
comforts to which she had been accustomed; but
the defendant set his countenance decidedly against
the proposed union, and affirmed to the plaintiff
that he should never obtain his consent to his
marriage with his daughter. Plaintiff's attachment
was not shaken by the resolution of the young lady's
father, and he trusted that time migat induce a
change of that resolution in his favour; and he ac-
cordingly persevered in his suit, and had occasional
interviews with Miss Dean, and it was in connexion
with one of those meetings that the act arose which
' led to this action. Plaintiff, in the month of April,
at about six o'clock in the evening, was in company
with Miss Dean, who leant upon his arm, and was
met by the defendant, who addressed some abusive
language to him, and called a policeman, and gave
him into custody. The evening was quite light, and
the plaintiff was marched through the public street
in custody, numerous persons passing at the time,
and taken to the station-house, a distance of a quar-
ter of a mile from the place he was given in
charge. He was placed in the dock at the sta-
tion-house, in his passage to which he had to
pass a numerous body of police. The charge made
against Lim by the defendant was that he
was withdrawing his daughter from his house, and
that he had repeatedly forbidden him from keeping
company with her. The inspector saw the frivolous-
ness of the charge and dismissed it, setting the plain-
, tiff at liberty on the instant. Plaintiff was not
desirous, notwithstanding the indignity offered to him,
to take legal proceedings against the defendant, and
offered to compromise -the injury if the defendant
would only make such expression of his regret for the
step he had taken as would satisfy plaintiff's friends
that no imputation attached to his moral character;
but defendant, through his attorney, refused to make
any apology for what he had done, an 3 plaintiff had
consequently no course open to him but to appeal to a
jury for the obtainment of that redress which the de-
fendant, in the face of such an inquiry, refused him,
and even now he would not press the action further if
the defendant would make an expression of his regret
in court and pay the plaintiff's costs ; but that ex-
pression of regret, it appeared, he was not disposed to