The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-06 00:00:00

imprisonment, The defendant pleaded only h
general issue.

The plaintiff's wife, Phoebe Dowding, Wag a e'
spectable looking 'old lady, 65 years of age, and
from her evidence it appeared that on the afternoon
of Friday, (January 13, 1860, the defendant came
came into her house in a state of intoxication. At
that time she was suffering from rheumatic gout,
and, reclining on the sofa, was assisting her maidservant in preparing some fowls for market. The
defendant, on entering, asked for a pint of beer,
but she refused to give him any, telling him that
he was drunk already. He told her that if she
would not give him any beer he would kiss her, but
he left the house without carrying the threat into
execution. The defendant lived at an adjoining
farm, and he had not been absent long before he re-
turned, and repeated his annoyance both to the
child, the servant, and the mistress. At length he
assaulted the old lady by rubbing his hands up and
down her face, and knocking off her spectacles in
an attempt which he made to kiss her. The 01"
lady resisted this attempt, and, having a knife ill
her hand with which she was dressing a fowl, elle
thrust it out, and, as she said, by accident, th,e
point of the knife entered his side, and made 1"
bleed. The defendant then went away, and the
next day sent a policeman to take the old ladl
into custody, upon a charge of wounding him with
the knife. The policeman told the old lady wile',
he had come for, but she refused to be apPre;•
hended; and the policeman went away ;
eventually returned, at 11 o'clock at night'
which was Saturday, accompanied by the de;
fendant's son.. He then said he must take til
old lady by fair means or by foul, and he Pe.t
„
her into the defendant's cart, which he had
readiness. The old lady was suffering from rhea'
matic gout, and was taken in the open cart at 1'
o'clock at night, on the 14th of January, a distance
of eight miles to the lock-up at Bromyard, whet:
she was confined all night. Next day she had the
attendance of her medical man, and was remove!
to an inn, and on the Monday she was taken lode',
the magistrates, and as the defendant did not ag•
pear, she was remanded, bat liberated on b
When before the magistrates the defendant swore
that he went to the plaintiff's house to pay soles
taxes, and asked for the plaintiff's son, who icv
the tax collector, and that the old lady thrust the
knife at him, but on cross-examination he admitted
that he laid his hand on her head. The magl
trates declined to hear evidence for the defence, sFA
eventually committed the old lady to take her trl7,
at the County Sessions, where the grand jury thre:t
out the bill. The present action was then broug a
to recover damages for the false imprisonment e.lleb
malicious prosecution, and the expenses to wN
the plaintiff had been put in defending his
before the magistrates and at the sessions. ,„'
maidservant was called, and corroborated her 131:,
tress's evidence as to the intoxication of the defeZA
dant, and the plaintiff himself was called, and still
that the defendant had been drinking for two
three hours previously. The policeman stated will
he acted by the authority of the defendant. In
cross-examination an attempt was made to ell!,A
th-it the wound was a serious one and bled a goL
deal, and that the defendant acted in the bona ,Plo
belief that the old lady had wilfully inflicted
wound.
Mr. Justice Byles said he should reserve
question whether there was reasonable and Pre7,,
ble cause. It might be that the wound was sc
dental, as stated ; but it might also be that the de'
fendant believed it was intentional, and the use :t
the knife could not be justified, as the defend
called no witness.

-------
Mr. Huddleston summed up the plaintiff's eTY
dente, and
Mr. Cooke addressed the jury in mitigation
damages. He admitted that the defendant A.
intoxicated when he entered the plaintiff's 11011:7;
but he contended there was no ground for sag
;
that he had been actuated by any malicious motive
" 0
1
He was in bed and suffering from his wound li"„t,
the policeman came to him, and it was only in le
swer to the policeman's question, that he ga
authority to arrest.
The jury retired, and ultimately found a vex-„lit,
for the plaintiff, with £l5 damages for the asas,"3o
£l5 for giving the old lady into custody, and
for the malicious prosecution. the
Mr. Justice Byles asked thea
jury whether,i
stab was accidental or otherwise, and thei:s,o
swered it was accidental ; but in answer to aliclt'ci.
question, whether the defendant had acted mall
ously, they said he had not.
Mr. Justice Byles thereupon directed that a
diet should be entered for the plaintiff fertily
damages, on the counts for the assault wad 'fait
imprisonment; and for the defendant on the efi-he
P for a malicious prosecution. His lordship 'for
thought that would make an end of the actioa' „14
it was very doubtful whether the plaintiff e°'
recover on the third count.
Verdict for the plaintiff.---Damages, £3O.