The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

BAIL COURT, Fan. 3.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Justice COLE-
RIDGE and a Middlesex Jury.)
STEVENSON V. DONELLY.
In this case the plaintiff, who sued in forma pan-
penis, brought the action against the defendant, to re•
cover damages for false imprisonment.
It appeared that during the spring of last year, the
plaintiff was living with the defendant, Captain Donelly,
son of the late Admiral Ross Donelly, as coachman.
The Captain resided in Harley-street, in the house of
his father, whose guardian he had been appointed,
under a Commission of Lunacy. Miss Donelly, the
defendant's sister, resided with him, and previous to
the defendant's marriage, bad had the management of
the house. Captain Donclly had, however, married,
and subsequently to his marriage differences bad
taken place between himself and his sister, who, how-
ever, continued to reside at the house in Harley-
street. On the night in question Miss Donelly had
gone to the Opera, and during her absence Captain
Donelly bad gone down into the kitchen, and repri-
manded the servants for making a noise. Shortly
afterwards Miss Donelly returned, and, on ringing at
the bell, the door was opened by the defendant, and
slammed in her face. The servants, however, immedi-
ately afterwards let her in by opening the door of the arca.
It appeared that in passing to her room she would have
to pass the door of the room occupied by defendant ;
and fearing that he might rush out upon her, she re-
quested the servants to see her safely past his door.
They did so ; plaintiff, whose sleeping place was in the
stable, accompanying them, he had previously been up
stairs on a message for one of the servants, but had
been ordered down by Captain Donelly. After they
were all in bed, Captain and Mrs. Donelly got up and
left the house, and shortly alter return ed, accompanied
by the police ; being unable to obtain admittance by the
street door, they went round to the stable door, of
which the Captain had the key, and, calling the plain-
tiff out of his hed, he gave him in charge to the police
for creating a disturbance in the house, and using abusive
language, at the same time giving another servant,
named Shepherd, into custody on the same charge, and
also on a charge of asse.ult. In the morning, Shep-
herd, who had been going up stairs with a pistol, and
who said there were thieves in the house, was fined by
the Mki,trate, and the case against the plaintiff was
dismissed.

Mr. TIIESIGER having addressed the jury for the
plaintiff, called various witnesses to prove his case.
Mr. CROWDER, for the defendant, admitted that the
verdict must go against him ; but contended that it
was a case for merely nominal damages.
' Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, in summing up, said that
he considered it a case certainly calling for more than
nominal damages. It was a gross abuse of the criminal
law for a master to give a servant in custody of the
police, on such a charge as creating a disturbance, and
making use of abusive language. If a servant were im-
pertinent, his master should turn him out of his house
—not give him in charge of the police ; for the tact
of a man having been before a Magistrate told against
him afterwards. It was frequently said of a servant,
" Oh, he has been before a Magistrate ;" and this ob-
servation alone, without any knowledge of the circum•
sta-e.s, was calculated to inflict injury on a person in
the plaintiff's station. The Jury, however, were not to
suffer their feelings to carry them away, but•were to
give such temperate damages as would be a sufficient
compensation to the plaintiff, and place him in the si-
tuation he was in before this occurrence took place.
The Jury, on their return into Court, found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 701.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

' head and the left side of his body, and broke two of his
ribs. He called " Murder," and John Shaughnessy tol
his brother to kick him in the mouth, and Michael im-
mediately attempted to do so, but his foot fortunately
struck against a door-scraper and the blow was averted.
In ad lition to the injuries above stated, the prosecutor
had his left eyelid cut open, and was other-
wise severely injured. The prisoners then ran
away, and the prosecutor went after them, and
John knocked him down a second time, and
they both kicked him while he was on the
ground. The prosecutor, it appeared, gave no pro-
vocation for the outrage that was committed upon him.
Several witnesses were examined, who corroborated
the prosecutor's statement, and a medical gentleman
described his injuries to have been very severe, and it
appeared that he had been three weeks in the hospital
in consequence.
• The prisoners received a good character.
The Jury found them guilty, but with a recommenda-
tion to mercy on account of their good character,
The prisoners were again indicted for a similar
offence upon J)seph Peet, the constable, who had
assisted in their apprehension, and they were found
guilty of a common assault,
The GouaT sentenced the prisoners to be kept to hard
labour for two years.
Toe Recorder sat in the evening, but the cases dis-
posed of were of no public interest.

(NEW COURT)
(Before the COMMON SRRGEAN r.)
Abraham Moser, a Jew, was indicted for stealing a bas-
ket containing some linen, the property of Wm. Troude.
Policeman 117 of the K division, saw the prisoner at
seven o'clock in the morning, following a car on the Mile-
end-road, from which he took something, and then ran
away. The policeman followed the car, and found that is
parcel was missing. lie afterwards apprehended the pri-
soner, and though ho found none of the property in his
possession, it was proved that he had disposed of a por.
tion of it.

The Jury found the prisoner guilty.
It nppeared from his previous character that he lived
by theft.
He was sentenced to seven years' transportation.