The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-29 00:00:00

Ctirb 7aWon

QUEEN'S BENC.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice ERL 11E
and a Common Jury.)
FALSE IMPRISONMENT—OSTERMAN V. 73A.TEMAN.
This case, which was commenced yesterday, was re-
sumed at the sitting of the Court.
The plaintiff is an upholsterer, and the defendant a
timber-merchant. It was an action brought to
recover compensation in damages from the defendant
for having been improperly given into custody by him,
for having caused him to be imprisoned, and for having
maliciously preferred an indictment against him at tha
London Sessions for riot. The occurrence arose out of

221,4

6%

24
1114

6
481'

2314

113/4

a dispute that existed between the inhabitants o
the ward of Bishopsgate and Messrs. Lamont and
Stuart, who had endeavoured to close an alley, known
as Angel-alley, which runs into Long•alley, and is
situated in the ward of Bishopsgate. Messrs. Lamont
and Stuart became possessed of some property in the
centre of the alley ; soon after they closed the
alley, which, it was contended by the plain.
tiff had for many years been a public tho-
roughfare. Mr. Bateman, the defendant, became
the occupier, after Messrs. Lamont aad Stuart had
vacated them. He likewise endeavoured to close the
thoroughfare; his endeavours, however, were for some
time unsuccessful; he at length constructed a hoarding
across the alley. The inhabitants resisted, what they
conceived to be, a wanton and unjustifiable aggression.
Hence frequent squabbles were the result. A gentleman
named Brown endeavoured personally to remove the ob-
struction, upon which the defendant gave him into cus-
tody for acting illegally. An action was brought in conse-
quence, and Mr. Brown recovered damages. The plain-
tiff and another gentleman, also named Bateman (since
dead), on the 7th of August, 1843, served the de-
fendant with a notice to the effect, that if the
fence was not removed by ten the next morning, that
they would have it pulled down. They on the 9th went
to the alley with some workmen, and set to work to re-
move the hoarding
of, upon which they
whore
haven
be e into
the custody the police,
summoned to the place. They were taken before the
Lord Mayor, who held them to bail, to answer the
charge at the sessions, in 1001., and two sureties of
501. each. Mr. Alderman Copeland was on the
bench. They were unable to find such large bail,
and remained in the Compter for ten days,
when they were taken before a Judge at chambers,
who reduced the bail to 201., and they
ay were
liberated. The case was removed into this court by
certiorari, but a decision having been given against the
right, which was abandoned, and the thoroughfare left
unobstructed, the case was not proceeded with.
Mr. James was for the plaintiff and Mr. Gurney for
the defendants.
A mass ef evidence wss adduced to show that the
thoroughfare had existed from time immemorial. It
was not clear that the defendant gave the plaintiff into
custody or that he charged him with riot. The defence,
and documentary evidence was given of the fact, that
the prosecution of the plaintiff was directed by Alder-
man Copeland, who was the Alderman of the ward,
and that the defendant was merely a witness in the
matter.
Mr. JAMES commented severely upon the secret course
which Mr. Alderman Copeland had adopted in the
matter—of the impropriety of his covertly playing the
plaintiff or prosecutor, whilst he was sitting on the bench
and adjudicating in the case. But was no one to be
answerable for the injury inflicted on theplaintiff? There
could be no doubt that the defendant was the prime
mover throughout, and he trusted the jury would by their
verdict show that they would not tolerate the paltry
shifting of liability which had been set up at the last
moment, in order to save the defendant from being
punished for an improper exercise of the criminal law
against a person who was merely defending a civil right.
Mr. Justice ERLE summed up.
The jury;then retired, and after an absence of an hour,
returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff--
Damages, 200/.
SECONDARIES'.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary Jain Es.)
HUNT AND OTHERS V. SAT,IPSON - SAME V. WILKINS.
These were inquiries to assess the amount due from
each of the defendants as lessees of a wharf, called Essex
VV harf.
The defendants having suffered judgment to go by
owfor2e6Bgl.i.
given
Bd.
duo dduefeauflrtoiandemaicthteddetfhooadt
defendant,
se
te:aowd-
that amount. asveardsiuctras