The Sun.
London, England, 1823-07-16 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

SALISBURY, MONDAY, JULY 14.
Before Mr. Justice BEST and a common Jury.
molt v. METHUEN, JOY, AND JONES.
This was an action for false imprisonment brought by the
plaintiff Bane, a cheese factor and saddler, of Castlecomb, in
the county of Wilts, against the defendants ; two of whom
are in the commission of the peace, and the third, Jones.
is constable of Castlecomb. It appeared that the plaintiff
in the month of March last was out shooting rabbits, and
on the same morning the widows of an uninhabited house,
belonging to a tradesman of Castlecomb, named Taylor, were
broken by a discharge of gun-shot. Taylor, suspecting the
plaintiff was the author of the mischief, 'applied to the defend-
ants (Methuen and Joy), and on his oath they granted a sum.
-mons, to which the plaintiff did not appear, nor to a second
summons that they afterwards issued, upon which they granted
a warrant, which was executed by the defendant Jones ; and
the plaintiff was accordingly taken into custody', and carried
before the Magistrates, who, after hearing the evidence of Tay-
lor and a lad named Ifillyer, convicted the plaintiff (under the
Act of the Ist of the King, for providing m certain cases for
the summary punishment of persons committing malicious in-
juries on public and private property) in the sum of 12s. for
damages, and I7s. costs. The plaintiff, after the further de-
tention of an hour or two, making in the whole an imprison*
ment of about 30 hours, paid the amount of the penalty and
costs, and was discharged. For this imprisonment the plaintiff
now brought his action, and on his part it was contended by
his Counsel (Mr. Gaselee) that by the Act in question the Ma
gistrates had no authority to issue their warrant for his appre,
hension. This being, as appeared by the warrant, only a case
of suspicion, they ought to have proceeded (upon the summons
being neglected) to have convicted the party, and if the penalty
had not been paid within the time specified in the act, then the
warrant might have issued.

Evidence was called which established the fact of the plain.
tiff's imprisonment, and the payment of the penalty anti costs.
Mr. Serjeant PELL (with whom was Mr. Wit.nr), on the
part of the defendant, put in evidence the conviction of • the
plaintiff; and contended that no case whatever had been made
out against the defendants, and the plaintiff ought therefore to
be nonsuited. The act gave an appeal to the Quarter-Sessions ;
but as none had been made, he had a right to assume that the
plaintiff had been guilty of the offence of breaking the windows
with which he was charged; and the Magistrates bad,• upon
their summonses being disregarded, done that which was the
every day practice of Magistrates in similar circumstances, all
over the kingdom. The argument of his Learned Friend (Mr,
Gaselee) was, that the Magistrates had no authority to issue a
warrant, as this was a case of suspicion only, and he (Mr.
Serjeant Pell) would have admitted that there would have been
something in it if the conviction had not been put in. •
Mr. %VrtmE followed on the same side. After hearing the
arguments. of Mr. GASE LEE and Mr. Wit.r.rasis, in reply,
Mr. Justice BEST said that if the case had depended on the
act of Parliament, he should have said the Magistrates Wert:
not justified under that act in issuing their warrant. The ques-
tion, then, was this—Were they justified under the circum-
stances of the case by the general law ? He was of opinion that
they were. If a Magistrate issued his summons, and the party
did not choose toattend to it, or to inform the Magistrate of his
inability to attend to it, he might issue his‘warrant.
Mr. GASE LEE begged his Lordship's pardon for the inter•
ruption, but he was in a condition to prove that the plaintiff'
had a reasonable excuse for his non-attendance on the sum-
mons, which would entirely repudiate the idea of any contempt
of the Magistrate's authority.
Mr. Justice BEST said he' was speaking to the case as it
appeared in evidence ; but if the Learned Counsel, had any
evidence to show that the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse; and
that he offered it in proof to the Magistrates, he (Mr. Justice
Best) would be ready to hear it.
Mr. GASELEE admitted he could not carry it to that extent.
Mr. Justice BEST said that, undoubtedly this was a very
important question, but as he thought the Magistrates were
justified under the general law (for which he cited the authority'
of Hawkins), he 'Would act upon that opinion and nonsuit the
plaintiff, with leave to move the Court above to enter a verdict
for the plaintiff, with 40s. damages, if his opinion should not
be sustained by the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.
The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
•

A Lady of the most engaging appearanceoewly
entered into her 17th year, the daughter of a.
respectable feuar in the neighbourhood of Brechln,
lately attracted the attention of two amorous
gentlemen, the one a bachelor of 70, and the
other a widower considerably above that age,
both very 44 forbidding men," but very wealthy.
With kind words and liberal presents they corn-
lady's affections, and many an angry loolc
pletely succeeded for a time in dividing the
young
and bitter word was exchanged by the hoary
rivals during the contest. Fortune at last seemed
s uwe ic(tl,7(vieedr, ,
during wtlo
~hidselliaoyuss e
arei
to favour the bachelor--he obtained the lady's
Itmhdeseevery
ocordneserni, forand helerenrtecieTtront.n "Buse:
:el'nnight.
" betrothed
impiaayrimadteei oillin,s In
datlhteecreahvri
rgeileitidlitieg ihnoefirni‘ditooonf
dttaiillyee
dangerous."
inro us."
readiness, T I'e
altarpreo;
(Scotch Paper.)

MELANCHOLY CASE. An Inquisition was
taken last night at the Salopian Coffee-house,
Charing-cross, before G. 11. GILL, Esq. Coroner,
on the body of Adjutant-Lieutenant WiLLIAAIS,
of the Hon. East India Company's service, who,
arrived from India on Sunday night, for the be-
nefit of his health, and was found dead in his.
bed on Monday morning.—Verdict—" Natorat
Death."