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

imprisonment. The defendant pleaded only the
general issue.

The plaintiff's wife, Theebe Dowding, WU 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 maid
servant 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 old
lady resisted this attempt, and, having a knife in
her hand with which she was dressing a fowl, she
thrust it out, and, as she said, by accident, the
point of the knife entered his side, and made it
bleed. The defendant then went away, and the
next day sent a policeman to take the old lady
into custody, upon a charge of wounding him with
the knife. The policeman told the old lady what
he had come for, but she refused to be appre-
hended, and the policeman went away ; but
eventually returned, at 11 o'clock at night,
which was Saturday, accompanied by the de-
fendant's son. He then said he must take the
old lady by fair means or by foul, and he put
her into the defendant's cart, which he had in
readiness. The old lady was suffering from rheu-
matic gout, and was taken in the open cart at 11
o'clock at night, on the 14th of January, a distance
of eight miles to the lock-up at Bromyard, where
she was confined all night. Next day she had the
attendance of her medical man, and was removed
to an inn, and on the Monday she was taken before
the magistrates, and as the defendant did not ap-
pear, she was remanded, but liberated on bail.
When before the magistrates the defendant swore
that he went to the plaintiff's house to pay some
taxes, and asked for the plaintiff's son, who was
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 magis-
trates declined to hear evidence for the defence, and
eventually committed the old lady to take her trial
at the County Sessions, where the grand jury threw
out the bill. The present action was then brought
to recover damages for the false imprisonment and
malicious prosecution, and the expenses to which
the plaintiff had been put in defending his wife
before the magistrates and at the sessions. The
maidservant was called, and corroborated her mis-
tress's evidence as to the intoxication of the defen-
dant, and the plaintiff himself was called, and stated
that the defendant had been drinking for two or
three hours previously. The policeman stated that
he acted by the authority of the defendant. In
cross-examination an attempt was made to show
that the wound was a serious one and bled a good
deal, and that the defendant acted in the bona fide
belief that the old lady had wilfully inflicted the
wound.

Mr. Justice Byles said he should reserve the
question whether there was reasonable and proba-
ble cause. It might be that the wound was acci-
dental, as stated ; but it might also be that the de-
fendant believed it was intentional, and the use of
the knife could not be justified, as the defendant
called no witness.

Mr. Huddleston summed up the plaintiff's evi-
denee, and _ _ _

Mr. Cooke addressed the jury in mitigation of
damages. He admitted that the defendant was
intoxicated when he entered the plaintiff's house,
but he contended there was no ground for saying
that he had been actuated by any malicious motive.
He was in bed and suffering from his wound when
the policeman came to him, and it was only in an-
swer to the policeman's question, that he gave
authority to arrest. _

The jury retired, and ultimately found a verdict
for the plaintiff, with £l5 damages for the assault,
£l5 for giving the old lady into custody, and £3O
for the malicious prosecution.
Mr. Justice Byles asked the jury whether the
stab was accidental or otherwise, and they an-
swered it was accidental ; but in answer to another
question, whether the defendant had acted malici-
ously, they said he had not.
Mr. Justice Byles thereupon directed that a ver-
dict should be entered for the plaintiff for £3O
damages, on the counts for the assault and false
imprisonment ; and for the defendant on the count
for a malicious prosecution. His lordship said he
thought that would make an end of the action, for
it was very doubtful whether the plaintiff could
recover on the third count.

Verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, £3O.

I'o UNTP v -711-d-PRET.S.

LEICESTER-AuG. 4.

There was about an average supply of wheat to-day, in,
good condition, and trade active. White wheat, 63s to 66s
—red, 60s to 63s per 36 stone; a moderate inquiry for
barley, grinding, 363 to 385; malting, 38s to 44s per qr. ;
oats, 33s to 36s per 24 stone. Beans—old, 48s to 50s,
new 46s to 48s per 38 stone.
Fine flour, 45s I Seconds, 43s I Thirds, 41s per 20 stone.