The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-23 00:00:00

: 4.y :10. Njtaa, MA. RC R • Sas 1646:

Mr. GUTHRIE then proposed—" The health of the
Chair," a toast of peculiar interest to Highlanders.—
(Loud cheers.) He paid the greatest attention to the
society ; and when a man was poor, and needed as
the fact of his being a Scotchman
was sufficient recommendation to receive aid
from The Chisholm.—(Loud cheers.) He was
to the society " all in all," and filled up the
vacancies of all that were absent. They owed him,
therefore, a deep debt of gratitude.—(Loud cheers.)
The toast was received like its predecessor.
The CHAIRMAN returned thanks. He felt the
deepest interest in the society, for it was the means of
concentrating at certain periods the innate feelings of
Highlanders who were separated, by their avocations,
at other times.

Mr. Sinclair then, at the request of the CHAIRMAN,
sung " Scots wha hae wi' Wallace bled," in excellent
style.
The CHAIRMAN then proposed "The Church," with
which he begged to couple the name of the Rev. Dr.
Cumming.
Captain FORBES proposed the addition of the
"Church of Scotland"

The CHAIRMAN would say nothing for or against
it, but, as their chairman, he called upon them to
drink " The Church."

The Rev. Dr. CusimiNo briefly returned thanks.
Mr. Brown then sung " Roy's Wife."
Th© CHAIRMAN proposed " The health of Mr.
Holmes and the other Visitors."
Mr. HonmEs returned thanks.
Mr. Archibald M'Donald then danced the sword
dance capitally.
The following toasts then followed in rapid succes-
sion :—" The Highland Society of Scotland ;"
" Chiefs and Clans" (responded to by The Chisholm) ;
" Three cheers for the Caledonian Asylum."
In speaking of the band, Captain FORBES, who
had been complimented as the chief promoter of it,
said this was not so, as they were chiefly and mainly
indebted for the establishment of the band, and the
proficiency of the lads composing it, to Captain James
Lamont—he was, he said, its chief promoter.
" The health of Mr. George Bain, the Honorary
Secretary," whose ab'ence was much regretted, and
that of " The Ladies," followed ; and the company
separated, not, however, we must add, before mid-
night, and until two or three reels had been danced.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, March 22.
(Before the Chiet COMMISSIONER.)
IN RE GEORGE ROSS.

This insolvent, whose case was reported in this jour-
nal a few days back, again appeared. In his proceed-
ings in the coart he described himself as " managing
clerk," but in certain printed prospectuses he was termed
" manager of the Heir at Law Society."
Mr. Nicholas appeared for Mr. Wilson, to claim
notice—Mr. Dowse, as on the preceding occasion, for
the complainants Emerson and Beanland—Mr. Sargood
was for a Mr. Gough—and Mr. Duncan was counsel for
the insolvent.

The insolvent was examined by Mr. Dowse at some
length. Of the money received for Emerson. 1041. was
charged as commission, and the balance of 1251 3s. 9d.
was to be set against proceedings i❑ law and equity. lie
said the trustees of the society would account for the
money, but it was not in the hands of bankers. Mr.
Beanland was another applicant to the society. He had
advanced 15/. and a fee to a barrister of '2l. 4s. 6d. The
society (the insolvent said) had agreed to give a Mr.
Barker 500/. as " standing comb:el." The money of
Beanland had been swallms ed in expenses.
Mr. NicHoLs claimed notice for Mr. Wilson, who
had entered into an agreement to act as attorney at
a salary. . _ _

The insolvent said he did not consider that he owed
him anything.
It was, after some discussion, agreed that Wilson
should be inserted a disputed creditor.
A point was raised whether the description of " ma-
naging clerk" was correct, when the insolvent had, in
other documents, been described as " manager."
After hearing Counsel,
The Learned CHIEF CoMMISSIONEH decided that
the description was bad. The insolvent had held him-
self out to the world as a " manager," and in his des-
cription termed himself as " managing clerk." The
petition could not be sustained. The Court dismissed
the petition.
(Before Mr. Commissioner IL►RRIs.)
IN RE WILLIAM BROWN.

The insolvent, a baker in the Watetloo-road, had
been twice before an applicant. He had contracted a
debt of 501., with a flour-factor named Boulter, by re-
presenting that he was possessed of property, that he
had leases of houses which realised a handsome income.
He had a family of eleven children to support, and the
Learned Counsel who appeared in his behalf (Mr.
Sargood) appealed to the merciful consideration of the
Court.
Mr. Commissioner Maims told the insolvent that
parties, by their own mi.conduct, often brought misery
on their families. Judgment, four months.
(Before Mr. Commissioner'tura.)
IN AR GEORGE CROUCH.

The insolvent, a parcels booking-office keeper, whose
case was reported on Monday, appeared for adjudi-
cation.

The Learned Commisslorma, in ordering his dis-
charge, reminded him, as a caution for :his future con-
duct, that he had had " a very narrow escape."

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT,—Lewes, March 22.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justica COLERIDGE and a
Special Jury.)

NEWTON V. THE LONDON ♦ND SOUTH-COAST RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, wh., being
under age, sued, by his father, as next friend, to recover
compensation from the Brighton Railway Company for
having falsely imprisoned him.
Sergeant Shee and Mr. Willes were for the plaintiff.
Mr. B. Gurney, with Mr. Bramwell, appeared for the
defendants.

Sergeant SHE, in opening the case, said the plaintiff
was a young gentleman, 19 years of age, the son of Mr.
Newton, a member of the bar, and of very respect-
able connexions, and whose name was upon the list
of the Commander-in-Chief to receive a commissio❑ in
the army, and he brought the present action to recover
damages for most unjustifiable and, as he should sub-
mit, illegal treatment which he had received from
the defendants, through one of the persons in their
service. The circumstances under which the action
was brought were these:—ln October last, Mr. Newton,
the father of the plaintiff, was staving at the St&-yue
Hotel, Worthing, and on Sunday, the 17th of that
month, the plaintiff having been invited by his father to
go and see him at Worthing, took a second-class return
ticket at London, which would entitle him to go back on
the second day. Accordingly, after having passed the
Sunday at Worthing together, Mr. Newton and his son
arranged to proceed together to town by the twenty
minutes to eight train on Monday morning, and they
proceeded to the station at Worthing• with that intention.
It appeared that they were rather late, and when they
arrived the train was about to start. Mr. Newton, the
father, however, succeeded in getting in to one of the
carriages, and the plaintiff also endeavoured to get
into one, and he admitted that at this time the train
was in motion. While in the act of so doing, one of
the persons employed at the station, named Joseph Wood
cock, called the plaintiff towards him, and, as he sup-
posed his intention was to put him into another carriage,
he went up to him, when Woodcock seized him, and
held him until the train went away, and he then in
sisted upon his accompanying him into the station,
where he demanded his name and address, and on th,
plaintiff giving him his card he was allowed to depart.
The Learned Sergeant said that if the matter had ended
there, probably no further notice would have been taken
of the matter; but after all this had happened, and
while Mr. Newto❑ was on his way back to the hotel,
where he intended to breakfast, preparatory to starting
by the next train, Woodcock again met him, and in-
sisted that he should accompany him to the Town Hall
The plaintiff demanded his authority for such a pro-
ceeding, when he was informed that if he did not go
quietly, he would be taken by force, upon which
he accompanied Woodcock to the Town Hall,
where he was kept in charge of a policeman for
nearly two hours, and was then marched through the
town, accompanied by two policemen, and conveyed to
the magistrates' office, where he was charged with vio-
lating the by-laws of the company, by attempting to
force his way into one of the carriages while the train
was in motion, and the magistrates, after hearing the
evidence and looking at the by-laws, and referring to
the Act of Parliament, dismissed the charge. The
plaintiff upon this made a communication to the com-
pany upon the subject of the indignity he had suffered,
and after several letters had passed between them, the
defendants, through their secretary, justified the act of
their servant, at the same time informed the plaintiff that
there was no doubt of his having committed an of
fence under their Act of Parliament, and expressed an
opinion that he had been dealt with very leniently by the
magistrates. He concluded by stating that he did not deny
that the defendants were, perhaps, justified in stopping
the plaintiff from getting into the trails under the cir-
cumstances, and of that act he did not complain; but he
did say, that when the plaintiff had been allowed to
depart, and was walking quietly along to his hotel, that
the conduct of Woodcock i❑ again interfering, and his
subsequent proceedings, were quite unjustifiable, and
gave the plaintiff a right to demand damages from the
company for this illegal act on the part of their servant.
Mr. Bennett, landlord of the Steyne Hotel, proved
that he remembered the plaintiff's father being at his
hotel in October last, and also the circumstance of his
son coming to meet him on tho 17th. He had occasion
to be on the platform of the railway station the next
morning, as the twenty minutes to eight train had
started, and he saw young Mr. Newton on the platform,
apparently in conversation with Woodcock, the station-
master, and they both walked into the station together,
and he saw no more at that time, but he shortly after-
wards saw Mr. Newton going away from the station.
As witness was walking towards his home, Woodcock
came up, and asked him if he had seen Mr. Newton, and
he told him he had just gone round the corner, and in a
short time he saw the plaintiff and Woodcock walking
together up the steps of the Town-hall, and Woodcock
told Mr. Newton to go in, but he did so in a courteous
manner.

By Mr. R. GURNEY—Witness was waiting in the
Town-hall, on the morning in question, purposely to see
Mr. Newton before he left the hotel, as he had not paid
i his bill.—(A laugh.) Mr. Newton did not leave the
,Isotel in that way, but " escaped" through a window.
an he followed them down to the railway station, to
try ~‘nd get his money. They were a little too quick fur
him, h•ral he was obliged to go to London, to sea Mr.
Newton about his bill.
Re.exa;nined—Mr. Newton came down to Worthing
a day or two afterwards and paid his amount.
Jenkins, the superintendent of the Worthing police.
deposed that Woodcock came to the station, accompanied
by the p-laintiff, and he gave him into custody for ob.
structim 4 an officer of the railway in the execution of his
duty, at id attempting to force his way into a first-class
carriage while the train was in motion, and the plaintiff
was left. in his charge. Woodcock at the same time
handed 'him the plaintiff's card with his address upon it,
and told him that it was some time before he could gat
it from bim, and that at first he had given another
name. The plaintiff remained at the station-house for
nearly t in hour, when he was taken by a policeman in
uniforms to the magistrates' office, which was about two
huadrei 3 yards off. Woodcock then gave his evidence,
stud produced the by-laws painted upon a board, and
the DI agistrate, after hearing the case, dismissed the
plaint i
By .kir. GURNEY—At the time the charge was given
witness had been informed that Mr. Newton had left the
hotel without paying the bill, and also that one of the
partie 4 had jumped through the window of the station,
and al so that they had not paid the cabman who drove
them) and he, therefore, thought that he would take
care of • the plaintiff.--(A
put Ala in
laugh.)
Seri ;rant SHEE Sthe letters to which he
had z e ferred, and said that this was the case for the
plaint if y.
Mr. GURNEY submitted that there was no case at all
to go t A) the jury. He referred to the pleadings, and
said t' sat the defendants were charged with a trespass aed
false imprisonment of the plaintiff, to which they had
plead eti a justification, the plaintiff having committed an
often' ee under the Act of Parliament, for which they
were justified in detaining him, and the defendant, by
his r eplication, admitted the justification. but pleaded
thii.t a fresh trespass had been committed by his subse-
pre t) arrest. He submitted, however, that this was all
par t and parcel of the original transaction, and that the
evil lence only made out the original plea, which admitted
the defendant's justification.
•orgeant SHEE said he contended that the defendants
hat i condoned the original offence by suffering the plain-
tin • to depart, and that his subsequent arrest was alto-
ge then illegal.
1 fr„ WILLes, on the same side, urged that the statute
clew ,intended, by the use of the words " then and
there s," mat a person offending in the manner described
shoe id be at once taken into custody, and he said that
if th e definition given to the statute on behalf of the de-
feat ants was th© oorreet one, it would give an indefinite

power of arrest, and a person might be apprehended is
London a week after for such an offence.

Mr. GURNEY was about to reply in support of his ob-
jection, when he was stopped by
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, who said it was unnecessary,
as it appeared to him to be quite clear that upon the
pleadings the plaintiff was bound to prove a distinct
trespass independent of the one which it was admitted
the defendants were justified in committing, whereas he
bad only made out the original one. It appeared clear
that the company had made a rule for the management
of their railway, which the plaintiff had attempted to
break, and their servant was therefore justified in de
taining him until he could be taken before the nearest
magistrate, and this was all that was proved to have been
done.

Sergeant SHEE reminded the Learned Judge that
Mr. Newton had left the railway station, and was
alone when he was met on the second occasion by
Woodcock.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Yes, but there is no doubt
that Woodcock was after him, for the first thing he does
when he meets Mr. Bennett, is to ask if he had seen Mr.
Newton?