The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-18 00:00:00

OSTERMAN V. BATEMAN.

This was an action on the case for maliciously, and
without probable cause, causing the plaintiff to be
taken into custody and carried before the Lord Mayor,
on a charge of riot, and afterwards preferring against
him an indictment for a riot at the Central Criminal
Court.

The case arose out of a disputa as to the validity of
an order made.by two Aldermen of the city of London,
in the year 1840, under Michael Angelo Taylor's
Act, for the stopping up of a court called Angel
alley, in the neighbourhood of Bishopsgate. In the
year 1843 the defendant had come into the occupa-
tion of some premises adjoining the court in question,
and finding there the fence complained of he con-
tinued it ; and being subsequently indicted for a
nuisance, the indictment was removed into this
court, by whom it was finally decided that the
order of the aldermen was bad, and the fence
a nuisance, the requisite number of consents not hav-
ing been obtained. But previous to the decision on
that case the plaintiff went, with several other per.
sons, to destroy the fence, when the plaintiff, with
another person was taken into custody, and being
taken before the Lord Mayor, an indictment fora riot
was preferred and found against him at the Central
Criminal Court. Before the trial of this indictment
the decision of this Court was given, by which the
fence in question was declared to be a nuisance ;
and, in consequence, when the indictment for the
riot came on to be tried, the prosecutor declined
giving any evidence. Subsequently this action was
brought, and was tried at the sittings after last term,
before Mr. Justice Erle, when the jury gave a verdict
for the plaintiff, with 2001. damages.
Mr. GURNEY, Q.C., now moved for a rule calling
upon the plaintiff to show cause why there should not
be a new trial, on the ground that there was no evi-
dence to support the plaintiff's case, and that evidence
had been improperly received. The evidence pro-
duced at the trial showed that the charge made against
the plaintiff before the Lord Mayor was not that of a
riot, but of maliciously destroying a fence ; and the
Learned Judge had, as he (Mr. Gurney) submitted,
improperly received parole evidence of the evidence
given before the Lord Mayor by the defendant. That
evidence had been taken down in writing, which
ought to have been produced.
Mr. Justice ERLE—I admitted the evidence sub-
ject to the objection; but it turned out that the
charge made by the defendant was neither one of
felony nor of misdemeanour.
Mr. GURNEY—The evidence was tendered in sup-
port of the allegation that the defendant had made a
charge of riot.

The COURT granted a rule nisi.
GADSBY V. ESTHALL.

In this case, which was an action to recover com-
pensation in damages for criminal conversation with
the plaintiff's wife, the plaintiff had moved for a rule
for a new trial on the ground of surprise, and that
the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
The case had been twice tried, and on both occasions
the jury gave a verdict in the defendant's favour.
Lord DENMAN now said the Court were of opinion
that there should be a rule on er ground.
Rule nisi granted.

LOWE V. PENN.

This was an action for the infriugement of a patent
for the manufacture of a screw-propeller which has
been successfully employed in steam-vessels. At the
trial the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, but sub-
sequently n rule nisi was granted for a new trial on
several grounds.
Lord DENMAN now said that the-Court were of
opinion
athbasotltuhtee.rule should be made absolute.
Rule

SHERIFFS' COURT, Jan. 17.

'Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL and a Special

Jury.)
WAINWRIGHT AND ANOTHER'. THE GREAT IPORTHERN

RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an inquiry to assess the amount of com-