The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, July 5.
;Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the Lord
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
31'GREGOR 0. HNIGHT.—CASE OF RIGHT OF WAY.
This was an acti,,n to recover compensation in da•

mages for false imprilournent. The declaration stated
thAt the defendant a3saulted the plaintiff, and seized and
laid hold of him, and caused him to be taken through
divers public streets to a police-station, where he
was detained a considerable time, and then

liberated on bail ; that he was taken before a
magistrate nest morning, when the charge made against
him by the defendant was dismissed. It stated further,

,hat his feelings were in consequence greatly hurt, and

his business interrupted. The defendant pleaded Not
Guilty, and that the plaintiff broke and entered premises
which bQlonged to him, and that he in consequence was

iustified in the course he had adopted.

The Attorney-General, Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr.
Miller were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Martin, Q.C.,

and Mr. Phipson were for the defendant.
The ATToRNEY-GENERAL stated the case, on the part
of the plaintiff, to the jury. He said he looked upon this
case against the defendant, which was an action for false
imprisonment, as one of a very serious character; it was
a case which the plaintiff wai compelled to bring into
Court, but he (the Attorney-General) confessed that he
should have been far better satisfied if the defendant,
instead of allowing the plaintiff to proceed as he had
been compelled to do, if he had stated that he had re-
gretted his conduct, and had made aR ample apology for
it. He (the Attorney-General) thought that he ought
to have done so, and he was sure that the jury, when he
had stated the case to them, would be of the same

opinion. Mr.tMcGregor was a gentleman carrying on a
very large business as a wholesale woollen-warehouse-
man, at 150, Cheapside. He had carried on busi-
ness for several years, and was a gentleman very much
respected. The defendant, Mr. Knight, carried on
likewise a very large business, in partnership with
another gentleman, as ironmongers in Foster-lane,
Cheapside. Ho believed he succeeded his father in that
business, and he now carried on a business of great
respectability ; but, unfortnnately, he had given way to
his temper with respect to what he supposed he had a
right to, and had dune that which, on reflection, be
certainly could not fail to regret. The premises occupied
by Mr.McGregor opened behind into a place formerlyealled
Sun-court, but now known as Black Lion-court,
which opened into Foster-lane. The defendant, Mr.
Knight, and his partner, occupied premises opening into
the court, as also did other parties.—(The Learned
Counsel here explained the model of the premises, and
handed in plans to the Court.) The court, as he had
said, opened into Foster-lane. It would be necessary to
state the respective rights of the parties, and to explain
how Mr. M‘Gregor felt it his duty to act when he found
the defendant disputing his right of way. As far back
as living memory could go, this passage or court had
been used by the occupiers of these premises without
interruption for a considerable number of years. The
court was enclosed at the end with large doors—the
door on the right band being only fastened by a large
clasp—that on the left being the door through which
access to the court was obtained, and upon the
door-post on the left hand side there were
bells with the names of the different occupiers
of tke premises painted upon them, in order that when
the doors were closed for the night, the residents might
be communicated with ; and no one had ever doubted
the rights of the parties to have at all times egress and
ingress through the court into Foster-lane. Some time
ago certain repairs were made and new doors were put
up. The lower part was boarded and the rest paved, for
the convenience of the occupiers, and the expense was
divided between Messrs. Brown, the then occupier of
the premises now held by Messrs. Clarke, fur-
riers, by the plaintiff, and Messrs. Knight, who
occupied the other side, and who paid one-fourth of
the outlay. Messrs. Knight being nearer the doors
than any of the other parties, it was arranged, for their
general convenience, that they should keep the key of
the door which was closed, and which, it was right to
mention, was very rarely used ; they had, however,
keys of both the openings, which were in the nature of
folding doors. This state of things had continued for
some time, when Messrs. Knight began to entertain a
notion, from some matter which he could not undertake
to explain, but which could not be material to the case,
that one half of this passage! belonged exclusively
to them, and they erected a wooden partition so as to
render the passage perfectly useless to the plaintiff, as
he could not get his large bales of goods through the
confined pace which remained. Before this took place
a very respectable business, which had been carried on
for several years by Messrs. Brown, was discontinued,
and another not so pleasant, but equally respectable, was
commenced on the premises by Messrs. Clarke, who
employed a number of persons, and as many
had occasion to go backwards for the purpose of seeking
work, more inconvenience was caused to the other resi-
dents than during the occupancy of Messrs. Brown.
The defendant applied to the plaintiff to assist him in
putting a stop to this increased use of the passage by
Messrs. Clarke, but he declined, as he considered that
Messrs. Clarke had the same claim to an uninterrupted
right of way as Messrs. Brown, and he declined to inter-
fere. On this they would be surprised to bear that the
defendant refused to let the plaintiff have the keys of
the door for the purpose of bringing up his goods. On
the 21st of August the plaintiff wanted to get
some bales up to his warehouse; he sent to the
defendant for the keys, but as he refused to let him have
them, he intimated that if he adhered to his resolution
he should resort to force to obtain egress for his goods.
The defendant had erected a partition which divided the
court in two, but was so arranged that it could slide
backwards and forwards, and Mr. McGregor on that oc-
casion asserted his right in person, with the aid of his
servants, and pushed the partition against the
wall. On the 24th of the same month he found
that the partition had been restored, and
that the door on the left had been fastened
with a padlock, and as the defendant refused to remove
it, the plaintiff knocked it off with a hammer. Although
the plaintiff was well known in the City, although he
carried on business for 13 or 14 years, although he was
a man of the greatest respectability, Mr. Knight
servantsaet iattended
n d e fdorbpyaaral°ldiairegen:thaeßrrcoi
plep,utboli public streets,
e station-
house reets,
urga,dhndofthpheeaod him and his
in Bow-lane, where he charged him with
wilfully destroying his prcperty, and with baying as-
saulted him. The Learned Counsel then read the
charge sheet, which described the plaintiff as a merchant,
carrying on business at 150, Cheapside, as being 5 feet
I inches in height, with light hair, and grey eyes.—(A
laugh.) All this seemed to be very ludicrous, but it was
a very serious and important matter to the plaintiff, and
a gentleman who exposed another to such treatment
should know what he was about, and the consequences
which would result from his conduct. He sent for a friend,
who put in bail, and he was liberated, but he went on the
:ollowing day, as he was bound to do, before the Lord Mayer
And Alderman Wilson, to answer any charge which
might be brought against him. They heard everything
that the parties had to say, and in dismissing the case,
those magistrates, in strong language, expressed their
opinion of the course which a neighbour, and a fellow-
citizen, had taken against another. Now, the plaintiff
complained that he had been taken to the station-
!louse, away from his business and friends, leav-
ingwhich led to his being taat khbeerne
pa icenha
et oeo,
te iotsrht
eoidf yp,tt.hehaeeciiree,ec cause
which his neighbours to speculate as to
cthhearregedwawith
ocobmremaiethtinogf
the violence of Mr. Knight, who caused persons
to collect about the court, occasioned it. The
plaintiff, however, shut the door to prevent a greater
crowd from gathering, and to obviate any disturbance.
the second plea of the defendant was that the plaintiff
committed a wilful damage of his property, but his
Lordship would tell them that if a man possessed a right
of way he was perfectly justified iu knocking down any
obstruction to it; in fact, that to do so was, in reality,
trying his right, and, therefore, it was ridiculous to sup-
pose that that plea could have any foundation. The
third plea was, that the defendant acted under the Police
Act, that he was demolishing palings, and that the
policeman took him into custody; but that plea was
equally untenable. He asked, therefore, afier the
plaintiff had been in undisputed possession of the right
of way for fourteen or fifteen years, and was
treated thus for simply asserting that right, if
he was not entitled to come forward, and say to
the defendant, " You have acted without advice; if you
do not make an apology, I will carry my case into a
court of justice and sue for damages for the injury you
have done me." He did not ask for extravagant
damages, but whatever sum they might award he
would derive no benefit, as it was his intention to pre-
sent it to some charitable institution; he simply sought
to vindicate his character, which was irreproachable. If
Mr. Knight had made an apology for what he bad done
he was sure the case would have extended no further,
but when he had not done so he was sure they would
agree with him, that it was due to himself and his
friends that the plaintiff should seek a verdict at their
hands. Unfortunately, however, this trial would not be
the last of the matter, as the question of right of way
would still have to be tried; he was sure also that they
would agree with him that the defendant had been
guilty of the most improper conduct, and that the plain-
tiff was perfectly justified in the course he had pursued.
The following witnesses were then called :
Richard Clarke, the plaintiff's servant, was examined
by Mr. Knowles, and proved the occurrence on the days
in question, and the use of the passage by the plaintiff,
and the attendance before the magistrate and dismissal
of the case.
William S. Mason also corroborated the facts of the
case as proved by the last witness.
William Murrils, police-constable 447, said he was
called into the premises on Friday, the 21st, by Mr.
Knight. He also proved the facts of the case, and the
taking the plaintiff into custody by himself and his bro-
ther policeman.
Mr. Goodman, chief clerk at the Mansion-house, said
he recollected the plaintiff being brought before Alder-
man Wilson and Alderman Johnson, on the 25th of
August. Solicitors appeared for the parties, but as the
proved the
matter was considered by the magistrates one for the
consideration of the higher courts, the defendants were
the north
discharged without the witnesses being sworn.
adduced his
and Nlprr.eßder coew s
predecessors
rsin merchantbusi
business
andess
since
a
occupation of the premises in Cheapside by himself and
uninterrupted use of the passage
doorettiawas the one always open.
already in question, and that
that he wfts entitled q and the constant
Mr. Meanie
The
if the right
of
waythat
x 0
10
Ilsauidb,eittwrieads einleathrifsrocamset.he evidence
T easingeedr , that he let
he
asti simply held
shouldhe dt the briefprpre-