The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENIWG, DECEMBER 4, 1846.

erroneous; the number of scholars being less than was
reported shortly after the 10th of .April, and the notes
in question were given.
Mr. Bacon appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Swan-
ston for the defendants.
ills HONOUR ordered the cause to stand over till after
the action, which had been instituted by the plaintiffs
should have been heard.

PAYNE AND OTHERS n. HUNT AND OTHERS.—IN RE

LIVERPOOL, MANCHESTER AND NEWCASTLE RAILWAY,

This was an application for an injunction to restrain
the defendants from sending to Manchester certain books
which contained an insertion of the minutes of proceed-
ings connected with the Liverpool, Manchester, and
Newcastle Railway Company. It appeared from the
statement of counsel that an amalgamation had taken
place between this company and the Lancashire and
North Yorkshire Railway Company. The plaintiffs were
directors in the first mentioned company, and charges had
been preferred against them of having mismanaged the
affairs of that Company, and a Committee was appointed
to investigate into their conduct, which was now pro-
ceeding with the necessary inquiries. It further ap-
pearedthat the directors here charged were also directors
of the amalgamated company, and they had given orders
that the books in question should be sent down
to them to i Manchester, alleging as a reason that the
same were necessary for their defence, while the plain-
tiffs were of opinion that this was only a ruse to deprive
them of all means of access to those most important
records. After some discussion,

His HONOUR said he would grant an interim order til
Tuesday.—At the conclusion of this case the Court rose,

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
ALLEGED FALSE IMPRISONMENT.-WILLIANS V. CRESS

WELL.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for an alleged illegal trespass and imprisonment. The
damages were laid at 150/. The defendant pleaded
that he had acted on reasonable suspicion, and that his
conduct was perfectly justifiable.
Mr. Sergeant Shea was for the plaintiff and Mr. Crow-
der for the defendant.

Mr. Sergeant SHEA stated the case to the jury. He
said the plaintiff was a young woman, aged 19, named
Anne Williams, and the defendant Mr. Stephen Cress-
well, a wine merchant, carrying on business in the City,
now residing in Northern•square, Kensingtcn, but at the
time in question occupying a house at No. 2, Eaton-
square. The plaintiff entered into the service of the de-
fendant as a housemaid on the 31st of October. She
referred Mrs. Cresswell to her former mistress, but
being pleased with her appearance, or from some
other cause,' she did not make any inquiries, and
engaged her without a character. Shortly after
the defendant disposed of the greater part of his furniture,
and the household, with the assistance of two or three
men from a neighbouring upholsterer's, were actively

engaged in packing up the furniture which was wanted
for transmission to the house at Kensington. The
greater part of the 24th of November was occupied in
this way, and in the evening the plaintiff was sent out
to fetch some trifling article for Mrs. Cresswell. She re-
turned betwien nine and ten o'clock, and was occupied
in repairing curtains until twelve o'clock, when she re-
tired to her bedroom. She bad removed her clothing,
and was about to go to bed, when she was called for from
below by either Mr. or Mrs. Cresswell. She went down
stairs, and the defendant informed her that Mrs. Cress-
well had lost a satin dress, and that it was their inten-

Lion to search the house. They did so, and in the courst,
of their investigation they searched a bonnet-box be-
longing to the plaintiff. She had left her boxes at a Mr.
Tuffnell's, id Earl's-court, in which they found some
stamped envelopes, which the plaintiff's wife said were
very like some she had, which might be true,
seeing that all stamped envelopes were alike,
adding that her package of envelopes was less t'han it had
been. Having completed their search the defendant left
the house, and shortly after returned with a policeman
named Cripps, whom he brought up to the bedroom, the
cook being in bed at the time, and the search was re-
commenced and finished, hut the satin gown was not
found. The defendant then directed the constable to

take the young woman into custody, and she was taken
to the station-house and charged by him on suspicion of
having committed felony. The plaintiff was taken
through the streets at twelve o'clock at night, an hour
when the defendant knew that no magistrate was in at-
tendance to examine the matter and to see whether there
was any just ground for detaining or nut on the charge.
Would it not have been far better to have kept her safe
in the house all night, and to have taken her before the
magistrate in the morning. Not careless of all
these considerations—forgetful of the injury—the
permanent injury—which might be inflicted on
the plaintiff by contamination with the wretched
persons she might encounter there, he insisted
upon incarcerating her during the night. By
the time he got to the station-house he had an opportu-
nity of recollecting himself, and of pausing before the
injustice he meditated. When he was there Inspector
Taylor intimated that he ought not to have her locked
up unless he had good grounds for suspecting her of
the charge, and advised him to allow her to remain in
his house until the morning, and to make further
inquiries. But he turned a deaf ear to this advice; she
was locked up, and they would bear in what society the
plaintiff, a girl aged 19, passed the night. The next
morning she'was taken before Mr. Bond, and remanded,
at the earnest request of the defendant and his wife, who
stated that they could produce additional evidence, to
Tothill fields Prison. She had stated on her way to the
,tation-house that the envelopes were given to her by a
young man-named Mason, with whom she had kept
mzite
named
Itecat
sch.asnytt6f,olutinngdLinetniahnaatinnt..bstethreeseettma,tpeGmlooyeonmdtenthtao,tf Mason
afi ge
ul
dns
was true; and although, at the house of hernawamnaosst-hfoeurna,/
Battersea, her boxes were searched, nothing
to cast the slightest suspicion on the plaintiff. On the
Ist of December she was again brought before Mr.
Bond, who, after hearing the report of the policeman,
finding that,there was no additional evidence, did that
which ought to have been done a week before—he dis-
charged her. The answer to the case was that a felony
had been committed, that the defendant and his wife
had reason to believe that she was guilty of it, that she
was only a temporary servant with whom they had no
character, that the only other inmates of the house were
the•cook, who had lived with them several years, add a
lady who was paying a visit to them ; that the defendant
had the care of the keys, and that no one
whatever had been out that night but her ;
but if they proved that every word of the plea
the defendant would still stand without excuse for his
conduct. Looking at the respective positions of the
plaintiff and, defendant, and bearing in mind that on
their verdict` depended the plaintiff's means of support-
ing himself in future, for if they returned an adverse
verdict, she would stand characterless, as no one would
employ a person 'who had spent a week in• Be
well,
whichwas
Justified by a jury, he appreheededrid they
could come to no other conclusion than that the plaintiff
was entitled to ample damages for the injuries she had
sustained.
The 's
on duty
—c frio.pllpostv, wßi,tndeespsoess wed,etrheatthwenhicleatllhede Z
twelvee
mand e oner,
the o' c I o
dc ke f theeConnda e
t
imnoErnaitnogn-sciouf atrhee b2ertheeonf
caarmobebteoryhindand e
been
requested
committed: him t comeolie esaid
dt om
rhise house
Creswelles
the
ed
previouslost stiti n gown,day. wHhei c h
saidshe had
he
e wornhad
_ dinnersom
workmen in the house but that the plaintiff had informed
him that she let them out, and that none of
them had a bundle. The defendant told him to search
the plaintifrs boxes, as he suspected her, but he (wit
ness) said he could not comply with his request until the
suspected party was in his custody. He took her into
custody in her bed-room, at the defendant's request, in
which the greater part of the conversation took place,
and in the ipresence of the plaintiff. She de-
clared her innocence. He searched her bonnet-box,
and found six stamped envelopes, and some writing
paper. He also searched a drawer, which contained
some things belonging to the plaintiff, in which he found
a reticule, which contained four envelopes. The drawer
was unlocked. The plaintiff pointed out both the box
and drawer to him, and made no objection to the search.
He also searched the whole house, and at the request of
the cook he searched her boxes, but did not find the
missing article. He found one number of the " Bri-
tish Friend of India" in the drawer, but Mrs. Cresswell
said it did not signify, as it might have been lying about
among some waste paper. He found a fancy wedding
card, on which " Mr. and Mrs. Cresswell" was engraved,
in the bonnet box. He then took the plaintiff to the
station, and the defendant attended, and charged her on
suspicion of having stolen a satin dress, value 5/., and
some envelopes. 'Mr. Cresswell attended the next day,
but he could'not swear that Mrs. Cresswell was there.
When the plaintiff was at the station-house the
inspector advised the defendant not to press the charge
until he could obtain further evidence, but the defendant
said she was the only: person that went out that night,
that he suspected her, and pressed the charge, and she
was accordingly detained. The inspector subsequently
questioned her. She denied the charge, and said none
of the workmen left the house with bundles in their pos-
session. She was remanded in order to give time to
make furtht4 inquiries. Did not recollect the defendant
stating that, it she were remanded he should be
able to obtain further evidence. She was remanded to
Tothill-fields prison.
Mr. Justice ERLE considered that the inquiry with
respect to the remanding of the pkiintiff to prison was
irrelevant, inasmuch as the remand was simply "in the
cause of justice," and as the defendant could not be held
responsible.
Mr. Sergeant RHEA said the object of this part of the
inquiry was to show that the defendant had been in-
strumental in obtaining the detention of the plaintiff
longer than was absolutely necessary to secure the ends
of justice.
Mr. Justice ERLE was satisfied, and the investigation
proceeded.
The witness then went on to detail the proceedings he
took in the matter, and referred to in the Learned Ser-
geant's speech on the second examination, and the
defendant did not wish to proceed in the matter, and the
plaintiff was accordingly discharged.
In cross-examination, the witness stated that the
plaintiff told him that she had bought the envelopes;
and that it struck him the door of the wardrobe, from
its peculiar construction, must have been opened by some
one acquainted with it. The defendant, wben at Queen-
square the next morning, wished the plaintiff to be sup-
plied with refreshments, and she had a glass of stout and
a biscuit

Re-examined—The cabinet might have been opened
by an upholsterer's man.
Inspector. Taylor, of the B division, deposed to being
on duty at the station-house in Robert's-place on the
evening in question, and to receiving the plaintiff into his
custody. He detailed the conversation which he had
with the defendant, and produced the charge-sheet.
She was placed in a cell with a woman who was " drunk
and incapable, and of no occupation."
Mr. Sergeant Sara, asked if the female was a pro-
stitute ?