The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 12.
REGISTRATION APPEAL.
CAPEL, APPELLANT, V. OVERSEERS OF ASTON,

RESPONDENTS

The appellant in this case was the owner and occu-
pier of some freehold land in the parish of Aston,
Birmingham, of a greater yearly value than 405.,
and was also the occupying tenant, but not the
owner, at a rent of more than 101. yearly, of a house
distant from the land, and situated within the
parish and borough of Birmingham. In respect
of the land he claimed a vote for the county,
but the Revising Barrister held that the land aad
house, although separated, ought to be united, and
made to form one tenancy, and being so united they
constituted under the Reform Act a true qualification.
The claim for a county-rate was, therefore, dis-
allowed.
Mr. KEENE, who appeared for the appellant stated,
that the 2,4 th section of the Act, which was relied
upon by the Revising Barrister, said that no person
was entitled to a county vote in respect of his interest
in any freehold land occupied by himself " together
with" any house of sufficient yearly rental to entitle
him to a vote for a city or borough, and he contend ed
that the words "together with" were meant to refer to
space, to the land being attached to and not separat sd
from the house. In the present case the facts show(xl
that the land was not only at a distance from the
house, but was not even in the same parish, and if the
decision of the Barrister was upheld, he argued th at
no meaning would be given to the words referred to.
Mr. MELLOR, on the part of the respondents, con.-
tended that the Legislature, by the words " togetle!r
‘rith," meant cotemporaneous occupation of the free-
hold land and house, and that it mattered not whetlo
they were actually separated, because the house arid
the land must be united and be considered to make
up and constitute one mixed or joint tenancy, quaff.-
fying for a borough voter.
Mr. KEENE replied, observing that the effect of his
Learned Friend's argument would be to deprive free-
holders in boroughs of a county vote. A house and
land could not be considered as making one tenancy,
entitling to a borough vote, if the claimant was only
the occupier of the one and the owner and the occuph
of the other. Before they could be united and made
to form a right to a borough vote, the claimant must
be tenant only of both; he must have a distinctive
character as a tenant without having any frecheld
interest.
The COURT deferred its decision.
BURTON, APPELLANT, v OVERSEERS OF ASTON.

Mr. KEENE was also heard on the part of the ap-
pellant in this case. Burton wa3 the owner of free-
hold land in the parish of Aston, occupied by himself,
of greater value than 40s. yearly, and also the mem—
pying tenant of a house in another parish of lesA
yearly value than 101. He claimed, in respect
of the land, a vote for the county, but the Revising
Barrister decided that he was not entitled to one, and

held that, although he had not a 101, tenancy, the,
land and the house must be taken together to form a
borough qualification. The only distinction betwe an
this and the former case was, that the house occupied
by the appellant was of less rental yearly.
➢ir. Keene contended that the two occupations could
not be united, saying that a voter's qualification coulill
not be rated in two parishes. He also argued, as im
the first case, that the voter must have a distinctive
character—that his qualification could not be malt
up of a freehold and a tenancy, which, although oft-.
cupied together, were actually in separate parishes.
Mr. MELLOR was heard on the other side.
The COURT took time to consider their decision.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 13.
(Sittings in Banco.)

G OSDEN V. ELPIIICK AND BENNETT-TOSS V. TD3i

SAME-MATNARD V. THE SAME.

The three actions abovenamed, arising out of the:
same transaction, were brought for alleged false im-
prisonment, and tried before Mr. Baron Alderson,at
the last assizes for Surrey, when the jury in each case:
returned a verdict for the defendants.
Mr. lI.AwKiNs now moved to set aside the verdicts
in all three cases, and for new trials, on the ground
of misdirection.

It appeared that the three plaintiffs, Gosden, Von,
and Maynard, had taken a horse to sell at a fair im
Surrey, and whilst they were endeavouring to obtaima
a purchaser for the animal the halter round the horse's
neck became loose, the horse started off at a gallop,
and running amongst a crowd, knocked down a little
boy, whose arm was broken by the fall. The bp-
standers' sympathies were excited in consequence of
the injuries sustained by the boy, the police were
called for, and the defendant Bennett, who was
constable, without much consideration, took into
his custody a stranger, whom he believed
was the owner of the runaway horse. The,
second defendant, Elphick, seeing the constable at.
fault, and having witnessed the whole transactifin.,
assured the constable that the person who was first;
arrested was wholly innocent, and pointed out the
three plaintifis, who were immediately taken in.
custody by Bennett. The following day all the three
plaintiffs were brought before a magistrate, and there
being in fact no charge against them they were at
once set at liberty, and after a long interval brought
the present actions. The defence was that Bennett
being a constable was within the protection of nu!
statute 24 George IL, c. 44, which enacts amoi3g
other things, that actions against the parties protected
by the statute shall be brought within six months
after the commission of the alleged grievance ; and
that the present action was not brought within the
prescribed period. As to the other defendant,
Elphick, the answer to the action was, that he ha-cl
merely pointed out the plaintiffs, as the persoras
having the charge of the horse, and incurrest
no personal responsibility by so doing. On the
trial, the Learned Baron who presided left it to tl
jury to say if Elphick had given the plaintiffs infix,
custody, or had Merely pointed them out to thep
liceman as the
.parties to blame, if any one was ta.
be blamed. As to Bennett, the constable, the
Learned Judge asked the jury if they believed l
acted bona fide under the belief that he was autho-
rised as a constable to arrest the plaintiffs, as in that
case the Learned Judge thought he was clearly en-.
titled to the protection of the statute 24 George IL
It was now submitted that the Learned Judge ought
also to have asked the jury if Bennett had a reason.. ,
able ground for taking the plaintiffs into custody.;
and as to Elphick, it was contended that the elms.
dence was, that he had directed Bennett to take up
the plaintiffs, and that there was no evidence to sup-.
port the inference suggested by the Judge, that he
(Elphick) had merely pointed the plaintiffs out as,
persons who had charge of the horse.
The COURT was of opinion there was no ground:
for disturbing the verdicts in any of the three cases.,
There was no doubt that Bennett was a constable,,
and acting in this instance as such, and whether he:
had reasonable ground for taking the plaintiffs into,
custody or not, if he acted under the belief that he,
was discharging his duty he was clearly within the.
protection of the statute. As to Elphick, it wouh
lead to very inconvenient results if a person pointing,
out the right party to a policeman who had arrested.,
a stranger was to be personally liable for such an act.
If this were the law, persons would be slow to assist;
the police in the discharge of their duty. For these:
reasons the Court would grant no rule in any of thel
cases moved.
Rule refused.
(Sitting at Nisi Erius, before Mr. Baron PLATT and,
a Middlesex Jury.)
CHILD V. BEST.

Mr. Atherton for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant,
Wilkins for the defendant.
This was an action on the case for verbal slander.

It appears that the plaintiff, who had formerly
been a draper, and was bankrupt in that trade, after-,
wards entered the service of Broad wood and Co., the
brewers, as a collector, and now fills that situation.
The defendant is a publican, carrying on business in.
Queen Anne's-street, Cavendish-square, and had some,
transactions with the plaintiff previous to his bank-
ruptcy. In June last the defendant, who is a cus-
tomer of Broadwood and Co., went to the counting-
house of that firm, and seeing the plaintiff there, said,
to a clerk named Eyles, " What is that fellow (mean-,
ing the plaintiff) doing here ?" To which Eyles,
replied by asking "Do you know him ?" and defend-.
ant answered, "Know him! to be sure Ido ; the,
thief robbed me of 171." For these words the pre,
sent action was brought.
On the part of the defendant, it was proved that)
after the conversation with Eyles the defendant went
to Mr. Huggins, the managing partner at Broad
wood's, and stated that he had used the words ixt
question in anger, and without any serious intentiose
of imputing felony to the plaintiff, and that he was
sorry for it, and was ready to make an apology. Itt
also appeared that before any considerable expensit
had been incurred in costs, the defendant offered to:
pay 101. and to give a written apology. Mr. Huggins
also deposed that defendant told him he was willing.
to settle the action, but that his attorney prevented him.,
Under these circumstances, it was suggested that.
the action was merely brought by the attorney fors
costs.

Mr. Baron PLATT, in summing up, pointed out to•
the jury that in any event the plaintiff would have to
pay his attorney's costs, and, therefore, that they
should not be influenced by the argument that they
attorney was pressing the action for costs.
The jury, however, after an absence of nearly two
hours, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with ono
farthing damages.

CONSIST DRY COURT, Nov. 13.
(Before Dr. LUSIIINGTON.)
DAUNT V. DASENT.
On the application of Dr. Addams the Court ad-
mitted the libel in this case, which was promoted by
the wife against the husband for a divorce, on the
ground of cruelty and adultery.
MORRIS, FALSELY CALLING HERSELF COOPER.
Dr. JENNER explained that this suit was pro.