The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-10 00:00:00

M`TIERNAN V. ORZY.

Mr. KELLY stated the case. It was an action for an assault and false
imprisonment, brought by the plaintiff, who is a wine-cooper in the em.
ploy of Messrs. Hastings and Co., of Fenchurch-street, against the de_
fendant, who acted as collector of rents of the premises occupied by the
plaintiff. Grey put in a distress for 5/. rent, and on M'Nernan promis-
ing to pay him in wine, the man in possession was removed. Grey ob-
tained an order upon Hastings and Co. for a dozen of wine, and took a
picture, glass, and table as security for the balance due. M`Tiernan
then gave Grey an order for fifteen additional bottles of wine; but
although that fully satisfied the demand for rent, Grey refused to give
up the glass, and when plaintiff went to demand it, Grey gave him into
custody for a felony, and he was confined at the station-house from Sa.
turday night, the 23d December, to Tuesday, the 26th, when lie was
discharged. Damages were laid at 2001.

Mary Farren—l was living with the plaintiff in New.street, Tothill-
tlelds, in September last, when a distress was put in for rent. I saw the
defendant there, on that day, and the same night, Mr. Grey took away a
glass, picture, and table, and said, when M`Tiernan would send the wine
he had promised, he would return the property. I saw M`Tiernan and
Grey together on the 21st December, and they had a long argument,
M`Tiernan charging Grey with not having returned the property, and
Grey begged to be allowed till the following clay, and he would return
them. The articles were not returned.

William Taylor—Was at plaintiff's house on 41st December. Grey
came in and took away half a dozen of wine, and returned with a pic-
ture. He then took away nine bottles more, and plaintiff asked for his
glass, which he promised to return next day. I saw plaintiff on Christ-
mas-day at the station.house, and tendered bail, but it was refused.
Mr. Hastings—l am a winemerchant, and the plaintiff has been about
four years in my employ, as a wine cooper.

Maurice Mulkay, a policeman—Heard a cry of police, about half_
past nine o'clock, on the night of the 23d December. I saw the plain-
tiffand defendant, at the house of the latter, in altercation. Grey called
out "Policeman, I give this man in charge, for breaking in my door, and
taking away my looking glass." I said that was a very serious charge,
and Grey then said the plaintiff had knocked at the door. He also said,
the looking-glass was his, and he said he gave M`Tiernan in charge for
a felony. I then took the plaintiff into custody, and Grey accompanied
us to the station-house. [The charge on the police sheet was then read,
it was, stealing a looking-glass, value 205., the property of Benjamin
Grey.] I saw Grey write that charge. APTiernan remained in custody
till Tuesday morning when he was discharged.

The Police Inspector gave evidencip to the same effect. After the
charge had been entered Grey offered to become bail for him.
The Clerk of the Magistrates at Queen-square Office read the entry in
the book.

Mr. PLATT then addressed the Jury for the defendant, and contended
that the plaintiff had no right to go to his house at a late hour of the
night, when himself and his wife were in bed. He admitted that there
might be a verdict against his client, but that very small damages would
satisfy the justice of the case.
The Jury found for the plaintiff, damages 51.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

LEWIS V. LLOYD.-LIBEL.

This action was brought to recover damages for injury sustained by
the plaintiff, in consequence of two libels published by the defendant
under the following circumstances. It appeared that the plaintiff, who
is a silversmith, had some stock transactions with a person now deceased,
of the name of Freshfield and the defendant Lloyd, who is a stock.
broker. In January, 1836, differences arose between the parties, and
Lloyd posted a notice on the Stock Exchange, to the effect that all per-
sons having transactions with Lewis would communicate with Lloyd ;
this being the mode which was usually taken by members of the Ex-
change, to accuse persons, not being members, of dishonourable conduct
in stock transactions ; whereas members, under similar imputations,
would be cited before the Committee, and if convicted would be expelled
from the Exchange. This notice was the subject of the first count. An
arrangement of the disputed transactions took place, which the plaintiff
wished to have re-discussed, and for this purpose wrote to a Mr. Dowling, a
mutual friend, to undertake the arbitration. Lloyd's letter to Dow_
ling, refusing to enter into the negotiation, and casting grave imputa-
tions upon Lewis, was the libel alleged in the second count.
The defence was, that the notice published on the Stock Exchange
did not on the face of it show malice, and was not necessarily calculated
to injure the character of the plaintiff; and, as to the second count,
that the letter to Dowling was privileged communication, the injury to
accrue to the plaintiff from which would have been very small, if it
had not been dragged into publicity by the plaintiff himself.
The Jury having retired for about twenty minutes returned a verdiet
for the plaintiff, on the first count, damages 405., rind for the defendant
on the second count.