The Sun.
London, England, 1870-02-07 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

ONE HUNDRED POUNDS DAMAGES FOR FALSE IMPRISON.-
MENT.—On Saturday in the Bail Court, before Mr. Justice
Blackburn and a jury, a young man named Allen brought
an action against the London and South-Western Railway
for damages for false imprisonment. The plaintiff was
with his two brothers at Twickenham station at ten
o'clock in June last, and a dispute arose between plaintiff
and the booking clerk about the change. It ended in the
plaintiff being given in charge at the Twickenham station,
and he was locked up all night on the charge of attempting
to steal a penny from the till of the booking-office. The
next morning he was brought before the magistrates, and
he was dismissed, the booking clerk only being questioned,
Mr. Denman, Q.C., on behalf of the company, expressed
regret for what had happened, and stated that
the booking clerk had been discharged. He,
however, contended by a matter of law that the
company were not liable. Mr. Justice Blackburn, in
charging the jury, said if the booking-clerk had acted in
furtherance of the company's interest, the defendants
would be responsible for the damage ; but if the jury
thought the clerk had acted out of spite, then the com-
pany would not be liable. The jury retired, and gave a
verdict for £lOO damages.
A THEATRICAL SQUABBLE.—THE NECKLACE OF PEARLS
IN COURT.—In the Court of Common Pleas, on Saturday,
before Mr. Justice Keating and a Common Jury of the
county of Middlesex, the case of "Cameron and wife v.
Leslie," which was of great interest to members
of the histrionic profession came on. Pefore her marriage
Mrs. Cameron was well known in the dramatic
world as Miss Kate Hicksson. The defendant
is a playwright of some position, being the author of
•`Time and Tide." The present action was brought to
recover damages for non-delivery of a play called "The
Necklace of Pearls," which had been entrusted to
Mr. Leslie for the purpose of recasting one of
the characters previous to its adaptation to the stage,
the plot itself being composed by Mrs. Cameron.
More than two years had elapsed since the original con-
tract was entered into by the -parties, and it appeared a
sum of £4O had been paid by the defendant for the
literary labour incident to his revision of the piece.
Finding that the suggested alterations had not
been made, more especiaily as the " screaming
parts, which Mrs. Cameron esteemed of essential impor-
tance to the interest and success of the play, had been left
out, the plaintiff brought her present action, alleging that
in consequence of the defendant's conduct she had sus-
tained the damage in respect of which this claim was
instituted. The jury found that Mr. Leslie had broken
the contract which he had entered into with the defen-
dant, and found a verdict for the plaintiff for £4O and
costs.

TEE VALUE or A LADY'S CURL.—A very amusing case
was heard at the Brentford Police-court on Saturday.
Robert Passmore, a hairdresser, was charged with unlaw-
fully detaining a curl of hair, value 10s. 6d., the property
of Miss Matilda Davis. Complainant said about two
months ago she left a curl with the defendant at his house
of business to be dressed, and paid 9d., the amount agreed
upon for the dressing. The defendant promised to get it
done at once and let her have it; but on her applying for

it some days afterwards defendant said he had mislaid it,
and on a subsequent occasion he intimated that she
must have taken it away with her ; owing to
his impertinence she gave him a month to
look for it, statinethat she intended either having the curl
back or the value of it. The month having expired, com-
plainant told defendant she intended summoning him
before the Brentford Bench for the recovery of her
property. He then promised to get her a curl from
London, but failed to do so. She then summoned him.
He disputed the value of the hair; but she produced a
communication from a London firm charging 10s. 6d. for a
similar curl. The Bench then made an order on the

defendant to pay 10s. 6d., the value of the curl, and 9s,
costs, or in default fourteen days' imprisonment. Defeo:
dant paid the fine.
SPLITTING A MAN'S TONGUE.—At Ruabon, last week,
John Williams charged Samuel Mellin with assaulting
and doing him bodily harm, with intent to murder him.
The complainant said that on the night of the 4th of
November last he was going over the fields to his father-
in-law's house, when he was attacked by two men
whom he passed on the road, and one of whom he
positively swore to as Mellin. He was knocked down several
times, and then Mellin put his knees upon him and tried
to throttle him. He forced out his tongue, and then
ripped it up with an awl or some other sharp instrument.
The men then listened, and he shouted out and they ran
away. He was taken into his father-in-law's hOuse. He
made signs that the defendant was one of the men who
attacked him. He had been confined to his bed for five
weeks. The inquiry was adjourned.

THE ATLANTIC AND GREAT WESTERN AND ERIE RAIL-
ROAD COMPANIES.—In December, 1868, the Atlantic and
Great 'Western Railroad ('ompany passed from General
Potter, the Receiver, and the road was leased by the Erio
Company. But the Erie paid no rent, and last spring, in
a suit, that company was protected by au injunction of
Judge Barnard, from paying rent, and soon after that, Jay
Gould and O'Doherty wero made joint Receivers of the
company. On the strength of that appointment, the same
persons wore made Receivers in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
But the receivers paid no earnings to bondholders, and
the bondholders appealed to the courts, and in Ohio and
New York, Gould and 0 Doherty have been superseded
as receivers, and Reuben Hitchcock, of Ohio, has been ap-
pointed in their place; and the same result will follow in
Pennsylvania. The order removing Gould and O'Doherty
as receivers in New York was entered on Friday last.
The new receiver is now in possession, collecting the
earnings. There is a pending negotiation between the now
receiver and the Erie Company to allow the latter com-
pany to operata the line, on the basis of 30 per cent. of the
gross earnings being paid to the bondholders.