The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-23 00:00:00

IMPRISONMENT.

This was an action for an assault and false im-
prisonment, to which the defendant pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff and Mr. Taylor were
counsel for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Sergeant Ballan-
tine represented the defendant.
It appeared from the case of the plaintiff (Mr.
Truss), that he is a warehouseman, and an agent for
Scotch and Irish goods, residing at Hatcham-ter;
race, Old Kent -road, and the defendant carries on
business as a market gardener and fruiterer in
High-street, Deptford. The circumstances which
gave rise to the case are disclosed in the evidence of
Mrs. Truss, who deposed as follows :—I am' one of
the plaintiffs. On the 15th of June last I had to
walk to Deptford, and as I was within six weeks of
my confinement, and the day was very hot, I felt
very much fatigued. I went into the defendant's
sbop, and saw the defendant's daughter there. She
handed me a chair, and I called for a bottle of
ginger beer, which she opened. I gave her a half-
sovereign—all the money I had with me. She vied
it with a coin tester, and broke it. She said, " This
is a bad half-sovereign," and handed it to me. I
said I was much surprised, because I had received
it from my brother-in-law, a respectable architect
in Biriningham. She asked me for the half-sove-
reign back again. I said, " It is of no use to you,
and if it is a bad one I will get it exchanged." She
replied, " If you don't return it to me you will get
into trouble." I said, " If you doubt my respecta-
bility, I will give you my name and address."
She called her mother, and said, " Mother, this
woman has been trying to pass a bad half-sove-
reign." The mother wished me to give it to her,
but I refused. I gave her my name and
address, and offered to take them to my house to
show them my brother-in-law's letter enclosing the
half-sovereign. Mrs. Smith then called' her hus-
band, and said, "This woman has been trying to
pass a bad half-sovereign and refuses to give it
back to me." The defendant replied, " Won't she ?
Then I will make her." I then gave him the half-
sovereign, and Mrs. Smith said I might go. The
defendant said, " No, I don't know about that. I
will have no mere of this. If it costs me £2O I
will make an example of her." I then gave him my
name and address. He told his daughter to fetch
a policeman. I said that if she would go to Mr.
Dovenor, a grocer, a few doors off, who knew my
husband well, he would speak to my respectability.
I. also referred to my condition. He refusedlo send
to Mr. Dovenor, and two policemen passing at the
time, he called them in, and gave me into custody
for passing bad money. The policemen told him
to come with us. I then entreated him to go to Mr.
Dovenor's, or to my home, to spare my reputation.
The defendant, handed the half-sovereign to the
policeman. I was then taken to the police-station.
There was a crowd round the shop. On the way
to the police-station we passed Mr. Dovenor's shop.
I asked the defendant andthe policemen to take me
in, and make inquiries about me. The defendant
refused. On my arrival at the police-station I was
taken before the inspector, and the half-sovereign
was handed to him. The defendant repeated the
charge. I was then taken into the searching room
and searched, the whole of my clothes having been
taken off, Whilst I was dressing there was a knock
at the door, and some person said the half-sovereign
was found to be good, and that I was at liberty.
He offered me the half-sovereign back, and a sove-
reign as compensation. I refused to take it, saying
I would leave it to my husband to settle. I was in
custody an hour. My cloak was torn and my
bonnet strings were pulled off. I was seriously ill
for a week afterwards. It was the occasion of my
being very ill after my confinement.
Cross-examined—l was going to Deptford to
transact business. I objected to go to the station.
I do not know that defendant had offered to pay

£5 as comp( .nsation. The defendant expressed his
sorrow for w hat had occurred. He took me home
andipaid my fare. He waited some time to see my
husband. The same evening my husband consulted
an attorney.
The plaintiff's husband was then examined, and
he stated that when he called on the defendant
about the matter, Mrs. Smith said he was as bad
as his wife, and ought to be placed in the same
situation. In 'consequence of that he had threatened
to kick the defendant out of his house when he
called upon him.
Other witnesses having been called in support of
the plaintiff's case,
The lean led Counsel summed up the evidence.
The defe nee was that the defendant had lost
large sums by taking bad money, 'and thinking
that the plaintiff was endeavouring to pass a bad
half-sovereign under the suspicious circumstance of
getting it changed to pay for a penny bottle of
ginger local-, he had considered it his duty to give
her into cu stody, but when he discovered he had
made a mistake he had done all in his power to
make amen ds for it. It was contended that this
was an at ;orney's action, and that very small
damages would compensate the plaintiff.
Mr. Baron Martin, in summing up, commented
on the fact t hat the defendant's wife and daughter
had not bee-ci called to deny the truth of the plain-
tiff's accomat of the transaction. It must, there-
fore, be tak en to be true, and the only question for
the jury was what amount of damages she was
fairly entitled to. She had been taken into custody
through they streets, she had been stripped naked
and searched, and had been exposed to almost
every indignity that could be inflicted upon a
woman. It, was the duty of. a policeman, when a
person was charged under such circumstances, and
gave a name and address, to make inquiries as to
respectability, for any person might innocently
pass,had money. It was clear that the defendant
had acted 6ona fide, but he was not justified in
giving the plaintiff into custody.
The lury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £2O.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL—MoNDAY
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and Justices Wight.
man, Williams, Hill, and Baron Channell.)

THE QUEEN V. HILTON AND ANOTHER.-STEALING
AND RECEIVING.

The prisoner, Elizabeth Hilton, was charged
with having, after a previous conviction for felony,
stolen a watch, and the other prisoner, M'Newall,
with stealing and receiving. Hilton was found
guilty of stealing, and M'Newall of receiving.
Counsel for the prisoners had objected at the trial
that Hilton should not have been at first arraigned
on the previous conviction, as it would prejudice
the minds of the jury, and the recorder of Hastings,
before whom the case was tried, assented to this
proposition. After the conviction for the felony of
the watch, it was proposed to arraign her on the
charge of the previous felony, when the learned
counsel objected, on the ground that the count had
been exhausted. He also contended that the facts
warranted the conviction of M'Newall for stealing,
but not for receiving, and both these points were
reserved.

Mr. Ribton, who had been counsel for the pri-
soners in the court below, now appeared for them.
The Lord Chief Baron said it was discreditable
to any gentleman acquainted with the law suffi-
ciently to exercise the office of recorder to have
reserved the first point, and he did not believe he
had intended to do so.

Mr. Justice Wightman said the learned counsel
had requested the recorder, as a favour, that the
previous conviction should be excluded from the
arraignment, and the recorder having acceded, the
learned counsel had then urged that it was too late
to do so after the Conviction of the substantive
felony.
Mr. Justice Williams said the Court could not
hear an argument on such a point.
Mr. Ribton having been heard on the second
point,
The Lord Chief Baron said he was of opinion
that there was no ground for the interference of
the Court. It was a matter indifference whether
the previous conviction was stated at the beginning
or at the end of the indictment, and he did not
believe that the learned recorder had intended to
reserve it. He had not much more to say in favour
of the other point, and the time of the court could
be much better occupied than in hearing discus-
sions on frivolous convictions, such as those which
had just been argued.
Mr. Justice Williams added—lt was lamentable
that the member of the Court should be kept from
their regular business to hear such objections.
The conviction was affirmed.
THE QUEEN V. CHRISTOPHER-FINDING MONEY.

The prisoner was indicted for stealing a purse
containing money. It appeared that the prosecu-
trix had dropped the purse. About four hours
afterwards the prisoner was drinking in a public-
housA, and offorecl a sovereign in payment. At
that moment the crier was crying the loss. The
prisoner asked what it was, and the landlord told
him. About 12 o'clock at night the prisoner was
apprehended. The prisoner was found guilty, and
the question was whether at the time there was a
felonious appropriation.
Mr. Ffookes appeared for the prisoner ; and Mr.
Stock for the prosecution.
The Lord Chief Baron said he felt bound by the
decision in the case of " King v. Thorbon," and
would hold that the subsequent conduct of the pri-
soner did not show a felonious intention at the time
of the finding.
The conviction was quashed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
(Before the Cdief Commissioner.)
IN RE WILLIAM NYE-INSOLVENCY THROUGH AN
ALLEGED ROBBERY.
This insolvent, who had been a corn and flour
dealer in the London-road, Southwark, and whose
case had been several times before the Court, ap •
peared to receive its judgment.
Mr. Nichols opposed for Messrs. Judkins, seed
merchants, who were the detaining creditors, and
Mr. Sargood supported.
The insolvency in this case was alleged to have
occurred in consequence of a robbery of £l9O,
nearly all in gold, from the insolvent's premises
in the London-road, Southwark, on the night of
Sunday, the 23d May last, about 11 o'clock. The
opposing creditors doubted the robbery, and the
insolvent was arrested at their suit, and, having
petitioned the Court, the matter was thoroughly
investigated, and great pains taken by the learned
Chief Commissioner to arrive at the truth of the
alleged robbery.
The insolvent and a policeman, whom he pro-
duced, were examined in respect to the robbery.
The insolvent's account was that he had been at
home all day on the Sunday, making up his books.
and that he and his wife went out for half an hour
after 10 o'clock at night, and when they returned
at nearly 11 they found the shop had been broken
into and the money taken from a cash box which
was placed in a desk and locked. He said he sent
for the police, who came and examined the place.
Into the cash-box ho stated that he placed, late on
Saturday night, £4O which he had borrowed, and
£144 which a person named Galloway, a commis-
sion agent, had paid him, all in gold, at half-past
10 o'clock at night. The policeman's version was,
that he was going his round trying the shop doors
at about 11 o'clock on the Sunday night, and when
he got to the insolvent's door he found it open and
saw a woman, who said he was wanted. He went
in and saw some women and a man, after which
the insolvent came home. An acting inspector
examined the place, and the policeman gave his
opinion that it was a " curious case," and stated
that the desk had not been forced open, and there
were other circumstances which induced the police
to say it was a curious case.
It appeared that the insolvent, who is a young
man, had been 15 months in business. His debts
were £717, of which £492 were trade debts con-
tracted since March. Galloway was described as
a commission agent, and underwent a long and
searching examination as to his bankruptcy, and
his general transactions. He was examined apart
from the insolvent, and several material discrepan-
cies occurred in their evidence. The insolvent was
sued by this creditors and got rid of the property
that remained. An offer of 2s. in the pound was
made to the creditors and refused. The insolvent's
shop was said to be now carried on by a friend
named Keating.
The learned Chief Commissioner gave a very
lucid judgment. He weighed the evidence adduced,
contrasted the discrepancies, and dwelt on the fact
of the desk not having been forced open, and on
the absence of all corroboration by parties who were
said to have been present when the police were
called into the back parlour. He believed that the
insolvent had prepared for a failure, and he did not
believe that a robbery had taken place. Impressed
with that opinion, after much consideration, he
believed that the insolvent had concealed or made
away with his property to defraud his creditors.
His Honour gave a judgment of 11 calendar months'
imprisonment from the vesting order.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Phillips.)
IN RE ALFRED BAILY.
Mr. Richard Martin, who supported the insol-
vent, said he was the son of Mr. Bally, the cele-
brated sculptor.
It appeared that the insolvent was a sculptor,
and had petitioned as a " trader." A discussion
arose on the point, and the insolvent said he pur-
chased marble to work upon it.
The learned Commissioner held that the insol-
vent was a trader, and named a day for the final
order. •