The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-18 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)

FURNIVAL V. STRINGER.
for the defendant, he appeared to move for a new trial.
triedir.atSGerugielandhtalWl, iaLnndEinsaiwd,hiicnhths
aivecasrdiec,twhhaidch had
tried
It was an action for false and harsh imprisonment. The
defendant was the sheriff of the county of Surrey, and
the plaintiff was a person very extensively engaged in
business, having a property in salt-works in Cheshire,
Lancashire, and the Netherlands. The plaintiff had been
induced to go abroad—he was there arrested, .made his
escape, and on his return to England, was arrested by
the same plaintiff for a debt of 8,0001., and lodged in
Horsemonger-lane Gaol. While there, other detainers were
lodged against him, and he remained in prison from Sep-
paslatinritediff, and the threempinavined-
tiff was nonsuited, and then Furnival gave in bail. On
from the debtors' apartments to the felons' side of the pri-
bpeeernsonallneogtedconthnaetcteindfowrmitahtiothnehpadrisboene,nthrea-t
having
f rhal
o:3o3imfn2ga, tto
September,
ITB3h ez caseth e w
the plaintiff meditated an escape, and actually had prepared
a rope-ladder for that purpose. He was closely confined
there from the 25th to the 30th September. During
that interval, a person doing business for the plaintiff,
was prevented seeing him. On the 30th the plaintiff was
permitted to return to the debtors' side, but was by night
confined in the felons' room, which it was proved was the
room in which felons were confined previous to execution.
From that period to the 2d of January he was locked up by
night in the felons' cell. From the 3d to the 13th of Janu-
tteshenemt;:ei2e;r,
ary he was closely confined to the felons' cell, and from the
13th, down to the time the change of sheriffs took place,he was
permitted to walk in the back part of the felons' yard, where
he was watched constantly, and much annoyed by an offen-
sive smell which prevailed. This had been denied, although
some of the Middlesex magistrates, who had been examined,
stated that the nuisance had existed. The learned Ser-
geant contended that the eyidence of an unknown person
was not sufficient to justify the defendant in the harsh treat-
ment to which he had subjected the plaintiff. He was
bound to show some reasonable cause for that treatment,
which he had not done. The information of a person un-
known was by no means a sufficient excuse for such a pro-
ceeding, although it might be a good ground for a temporary
restraint until an investigation of the facts had been made.
It had also been proved that Furnival had said he would pay
the expense of an additional turnkey if there was any ap-
prehension that he meditated an escape, Under all the
circumstances he thought he had made out a sufficient case
for setting aside the verdict,—Rule granted.

BUSH V. PARKER AND OTHERS.

This was an action of assault and trespass which had
been tried at the last Gloucester Assizes before Mr. Justice
Parke. The plaintiff, a scholar of Oxford, had been
shooting with his brother,' who was an attorney, upon

some lands, and one of the defendants, named pow el,
accordingly did, and in doing so they
requested him to depart, which he refused. Powel then
directed the other defendants to remove him, which they
a pond of water. The plaintiff alleged that he had a garae
license and permission from Sir Samuel Whallen, the
owner of the lands, to shoot over these land, 0 which the
defendants had rejoined, denying the right of Sir S. Whal-
len. The jury had found a verdict for the plaiiitiff against
dragged him through
defendants.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW moved the Court in arrest of
Parker and Powel, with 5/. damages, and for the two other
pond merely formed a part. If the dragging
judgment, on the ground that the plea of justificati?ne
covered the assault, of which the dragging throh distinctth
offence, a new assignment was necessary. The learnedt:
sergeant here cited some cases in support of his argurne;et
and contended that the dragging upon which the verdict
had been had for the plaintiff, should have formed the
ground for a separate action.
COURT-Take a rule to show cause.
SATESSAN V. TARKNET..
Mr. STEPHENS said that in this case, which was an acii
tion of trespass tried before Mr. Justice Littledale,
an
in which a verdict had been had for the plaintiff, he in°‘!,
that the verdict be set aside, and a new trial ha"'
the verdict having been against evidence. The defence
of the
was, that the defendant had a right of vicar
way as ,
_Aeci,
parish, and, secondly, the public right of way was plea" been
Several witnesses, some of them very old persons, had be
examined, and proved that there had been a right of way
through the closes in question for period the}'
as long a
could recollect. was a
Mr.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said that he would consult
Justice Littledale, and give the judgment of the Court to'
morrow.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY')

vs ,
(Sittings in Banco, before Barons VAUJGHAN, BOO'''.
GURNEY, and
Sir Was. OWEN applied to the Court, o WILLIAMS.) n
behalf of i alif
omnibus proprietor, named Bardell, to have a deod,,a°s;
50/., which had been levied upon him remitted. lierio
the law of deodand was the remains of a dark and
ous age, and was not now much favoured in the Lour;f
The applicant's omnibus had run over a child in St' Giles 8,
an accident which, he believed, had occurred throng? .stcv
Mr. Baron Garrow used to call the mischievous actel-,.1;
children. The child died, and the Coroner's Jury, as for
sometimes did, on that occasion went beyond the la" Ater,
they found a verdict of manslaughter, and fined the n'a'the
who had nothing on earth to do with the accident, inliej
sum of 501. in the shape of a deodand. He now aPP re,
to the discretion of the Court, either to have the fin Nos
mitted, or, at all events, reduced, as he thought it, the
much too heavy. He moved upon the certificate etted,
clerk at the Old Bailey that the driver had been acqtig
which clearly established the fact of the occurrence
an accident. tried
Mr. Baron GURNEY believed the man had beeinuid
before him ; and if so, he could assure him he had
'-
very fortunate acquittal. ,Anot
The COURT refused the application, as they Ns-o.l'ost
weaken the protection which the public now had. band
description of carriage required to have a very clese ate
kept upon them, however much they might acconvitsde to
the public. The application ought to have been ra
the Crown.