The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-09 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

THOMAS V. BIRD AND ANOTHER.
This was an action for false imprisonment, which
was tried before Lord Denman at the late assizes for
Kent, when a verdict' was found for the defendant.
Mr. PLATT now moved for a rule to show cause why
that verdict should not be set aside, and a new
trial had, on the grounds of its being against
the evidence, and the improper reception of
evidence by the Learned Judge. The plaintiff had lived
for many years with Mr. Bird, a farmer, as housekeeper.
He was not on good terms with his family, but he had
been an indulgent master to the plaintiff, who had en
tered his service when young, and had got comparatiyely
old in it. He was not only kind to her, but also treated
any friend of her's who called to see her with great
urbanity. On May 23d of the present year, the brother of
the plaintiff and a young man named Penn called upon
her and stopped the day, eating and drinking at the
same table with the deceased. At tea time the deceased
William Bird turned to the plaintiff and said,
" Ann go up stairs and fetch that parcel I told
you of in my room." She did so. He added,
" Now bring the money I gave you before." She
brought a bag containing 49 sovereigns. He then
opened the parcel and it contained near 5001.,
he took it all and said, " Now take it up,
place it in the box, and, turning to the brother
and his friend, said, " You are witnesses that I have
given it .to her ; take it home, and let her mother take
care of it for her." The old man desired the brother to
come over again on the Tuesday and look what the farm
servants were doing. He did so, and although Mr.
Bird was not able to go out himself, he desired him
to' go to certain fields and report to him
how they were cultivated. While he was there
a butcher sent in a check for 151. 175., and Bird
said " Here, Ann, you may as well take this as part of
the 221. I owe you for paying the men." On the Thurs-
day he was found dead In his chair, and immediate notice
was given to the members of his family. The defendants,
deceased's brothers,arrived in a short time; they demanded
the key:: from the plaintiff. They ransacked the house,
and were much disappointed at finding no property.
They prevented the plaintiff from leaving the house—
they charged her with robbing the deceased, and asked
where all the property was. She answered that she knew
of no property, but that which he had given her, and at
once gave an inventory of the whole of it, and told
them where it was. They were very angry, and told her
she had done enough to get herself transported. They
imprisoned her till next day, when they took her over to
Maidstone to an attorney, who was connected with the
family, where, by threats and intimidation, they
induced her to give up the whole of the pro-
perty, including even the check for 181. 175., her
own property. They again took her home, and
confined her for two days more ; they refused to pay
her wages, and by intimidation and threats attempted to
induce her to sign a paper, acknowledging that
she had voluntarily given up the property, and
that she would not give them any trouble about the
matter, but this she refused to do, and was turned out of
doors. Still, although these facts were abundantly
proved, the Jury had found that there had been no im-
prisonment. For the defendants there was actually no
defence, because the whole of the witnesses had
a direct interest in the distribution of the property
of the deceased. In order to obviate his objection, -a re-
lease was executed to two of them, but as their interests
were separate, the ieleaso ought to have two stamps—
whereas it had only one ; it was therefore invalid.
The COURT—Take a rule upon the latter ground.
JEWISON V. DYSON.
Mr. WORTLEY, in moving for a new trial in this case,
said the rights of the Crown were involved—he might
say the rights of the Illustrious Person whom they were
informed had so lately come among them (the birth of
a Prince had just been announced). It was an action to
try in whom the right to appoint the Coroner for the
Honour of Pomfret, which comprised the greater part of
the West Ridine•4, of Yorkshire, vested. The Crown
•
o'aimed to appoint upon a charter granted in the 23d
Edward 111., to the then Duke of Lancaster, which claim
was resisted by the Magistrates on the part of the free-
holders. It was tried at the late York Assizes before
Lord Penman, when a verdict was found for the plain-
tiff. At the trial the plaintiff had not shown any ap •
pointment till the 4th of Elizabeth, and the person then
appointed never acted as Coroner. The defendant
showed that in that year an inquest was held by the
Cormier for the county. There was nothing shown
until the period between 1756 and 1796, when it ap-
peared some payments were made by the Magistrates for
inquests held by the Duchy Coroner. They did prove
many inquests held by him after, but the defendant
showed that the County Coroner held inquests, and
many more in fact than the Duchy Coroner, at the
same period, thereby proving at all events a concurrent
jurisdiction. Ho complained that the whole of the
questions raised upon the record had not been left to
the Jury.
The Cow'. took time to consider the case, and wished
to see the charter in the Latin.
THE LORD MAYOR.
At two o'clock the civic procession appeared. The
Lord .Mayor, the Recorder, Mr. Alderman Johnson
(the late Lord Mayor), Aldermen J. Johnson, Farn-
combe, Gibbs, Ilumphery, Sir G. Carroll, and
the Sheriffs, having taken their places in the
seat allotted to Queen's Counsel, the Recor-
der presented the Lord Mayor to the Court.
The Lord Chief Baron congratulated him upon his ac-
ceding to his high office upon a day that would be hailed
with delight by the whole nation, from the auspicious
event which had taken place.
After the usual formalities, the Recorder, in the name
of the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs, invited the Judges
to dine at the Guildhall, and they departed as they came.
The COURT then took kfew short motions, none of
which possessed any...poll:lt of importance.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
Sir Frederick Pollock took the oaths and declaration
as Attorney-General PI.
NKNEY V. BOOTH.

In this case, in which Mr. Newton had obtained on
a former day a rule nisi for arrest of judgment,
Mr. Justice PATTESON said that the rule must be
revoked ; first, 'because having moved in the full Court
for new trial, on precisely the same affidavits, and
having been refused, it was not competent for the
Learned Counsel to move in arrest of judgment in this
Court. The motion ought to have been
in made in the full
Court: and, secondly, because a motion aof judg-
ment could only be made on the ground of something ap-
pearing on the face of the record. Now, in the present case,
the postca had not yet been returned into Court. The
will, therefore, must be revoked. The parties, however,
had their remedy. If the, grounds as stated, appeared on
the face of the record, a motion might be made in arrest
of judgment, and if they did not appear on the 'face of
the record, then they might move in error.—ltule re-
voked.

EXPARTE ARNOLD.
In this case Mr. ,VHITEHURST applied to the Court
for a certiorari to remove the proceedings against
a man named Arnold, charged with manslaughter,
into this Court, and for a rule nisi to ad•
mit the applicant to bail. It appeared that Arnold
had been driving some persons in a spring cart in the
neighbourhood of Birmingham, when, in turning a
corner, he drove against a post accidentally, the cart
was upset, and a Mr. and Mrs. Baldwin were thrown out.
Mrs. Baldwin died the next day, and an inquest was
held_ on her body by the Coroner of Birmingham,
and the Jury returned a verdict of accidental death.
Mr. Baldwin 'having been removed into the neighbour-
hood in which he resided, died also about a fortnight
after- the accident. An inquest was held before the
County Coroner, and the Jury was composed of the