The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-17 00:00:00

GARDNER V. GRACE.

Mr. Prideaux was counsel for the plaintiff, arid Mr. Stone
for the defendant.

This case, which was an action of trespass for driviug a
carriage over the plaintiff, a little boy of four years of age
carne on last Friday, but was adjourned to this mining, in
order to give the detens!ant an opportunity of adding ano-
ther plea. Tke plea having been added, the case was now
called on, and it was arranged that a juror shluld tee with-
drawn upon terms—the defendant paying to the plaintiff
£45, and each party his awn cogs.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, Aug. 16.
To-day an applica'ion was made to Mr. Baron Martin to
know when he would fix to take the special juries.
Ills Lordship answered that be would not lake them
bPfure Friday, but would not fix them. He proposed going
thrqugh the list of common juries and special juries in their
order. Complaints had been In_.de about seuding common
jury causes over to the other court to be tried on f)rmer oc-
casion., and he was therefore determined, to try all the causes
that came before him ; it should be the voluntary act of the
parties if they weut over to the other court to have their
causes tried.

CIVIL SIDE.
(BEfure Mr. Baron Martin.)
MASTERS V. THOMAS.

This was an action for assault and false imprisonment.
The defendant pleaded " Nat Guilty," and a justification
that the plaintiff was suspected of a felony ou board his
ship:

Mr. Brett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Aspinall for
the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff, who is a Nova Scotia man
and a Creole, was formerly cook on board a vessel called
the Antonio Varis, and left that ship with a certificate i f
good character, and engaged and signed articles as steward
and cook on board the Robert Jones, from Liverpool to
Valparaiso, in December last, at the wages of £6 per
month, of which ;vessel the defendant was captain. The
vessel sailed for Valparaiso, and while there the plaintiff was
cautioned to look to look sharp after the mate. It was his
duty as steward to take charge of the property on board the
ship. The vessel afterwards went to a Spanish port called
Calderos, and while there he mate, in the absence of the
captain en shore, asked the plaintiff for the key of the store
room to stew away tome bags of sugar. The plaintiff gave
him the key, and soon after went to see what he was about.
He found that he bad drawn a gallon of rum from a rum
cask, and asked him what he had done that for? The mate
told him to say nothing about it, and he would make it all
right at sea. The plaintiff answered that he should tell the
captain as soon as he came on board; and the mate then
said, "He would serve him out." On the captain coming on
hca.d, the mate, who was a Welshman, spoke to thecap-
tain, who was also a Welshman, in Welsh, and the plaintiff
mild not understand what they said. He was then called
aft with one of the apprentices by the mate, and asked to
open his room. He opened it, and saw a coat thrown on his
bed. The mate asked what that was ; he said be did not
knew, or who had put it there. His door was not locked.
The mate then searched in the room and found some other
things, which he said were his as well as the coat, concealed
is his berth. The plaintiff knew nothing about them, and
had nct put them these. The mate said to the apprentice,
" You are my witness as to the finding of these things."
The plaintiff was then called by the captain and told that the
mate charged him with stealing his clothes. He said he did
not know what to"think of it, as the mate was not sober, but
•he should make him (the plaintiff) "safe for the night."
The captain then had him put in irons and confined till next day
at H o'clock, when be was taken before the consul ashore,
and the captain and mate then stated the charge against
him, and he told the consul his story. According to the
plaintiff the consul said there was no case against the plain-
' tiff, and advised the captain to take him back on board his
ship. The captain, however, refused, and said he wanted
him kept in custody till the ship was ready to sail. The
consul told him if he was not satisfied he had better have
him tried before the Spanish judge, but if he kept the man
in custody he did it ore his own responsibility. The captain,
then, according to the plaintiff, saw the captain of the port,and had the plaintiff takeninto custody, and lodged in the
Spanish prison, which was small and ill-ventilated. He had
no bed to lie on, only grass and a bar of iron for a pillow.
He was kept there for :33 days and nights, without any
change cf clothes, and his only food was a pennyworth of
bread at 7 in the morning, and at noon two spoonsful of
beans. During this time men charged with murder, with
stabbing with knives, and with thieving, were thrust into
the same cell, and it was frequently so full that they had
not room to lie down. The cell was ill-ventilate.l, and the
weather hot. This treatment broke down his health, and
bails and glandular swellings broke out upon hitn. At this
time he had a large glandular swelling on his neck, the con-
sequence of that imprisonment. During his imprisonment
the captain visited the prison to look after a sailor, and,
seeing the plaintiff, said, "Are you there, old boy, I. have
you fast." At the expiration of :33 days, when the vessel
was ready to sail, lie was taken out of the gaol and marched
in custody down to the ship, where he was put to work as a
commonasailor, and told by the captain that he was disrated,
and rated as a common seaman, at £3 per month. He was
refused permission by the captain to go and see the consul,
and in order to do so he jumped overboard in his clothes to
swim on shore, but was caught and brought on board again,
and the captain told him he would take him properly before
the consul. He then ordered the mate to iron him, and the
irons were put upon him in his wet clothes as he was, and
he was kept confined till the ship sailed. On arriving at
Liverpool the captain handed him an account of what was
due to him for wages, rating him at £3 per month, deduct-
ing the expense of his maintenance in prison, and the cost
of a man working in his place, and making it appear that
only £3 were due to him. The plaintiff complained to the
owners, and told his story, and they, after inquiry, dismissed
both the captain and the mate, and paid the plaintiff his
wages in full, for which he had signed articles.

For the defendant, it was contended that on the charge of
theft against the plaintiff being male by the mate, he took
both before the consul, and that the subsequent imprison-
ment of the plaintiff was the act of the consul, and not his
act, the consul having sent him a note to take to the captain
of the port; and that he (the defendant) was not responsible
for the badness of the Spanish prison and its regulations.
The defendant was called to prove this, hut the mate, who
was in court, was not called.

His Lordship, in summing up, told the jury that tojustify
a private person in taking another into custody a substantive
felony must be proved, as well as that the person taking such
a step had reasonable ground for believing that the person
charged had committed the felony. In this respect private
persons differed from constables, in regard to whom it was a
sufficient justification that they had reasonable ground for
believing that the person taken into custody had committed
a felony. This was the law of England, and the law was the
same on board British ships ason the land. In this case there
had been no attempt to prove that a felony had been com-
mitted, though the mate was in court; and it might betaken
that that was a false accusation altogether. Tne plea of jus-
ttfication therefore failed. If the jury thought that it was the
defendant who caused the plaintiff to be imprisoned, he was
then responsible for all that he Lad suffered. If they thought
that the imprisonment was the act of the consul, then a small
part of the plaintiff's treatment was all that the defendant
was liable for. But, realty, as to this, it seemed to him that
if the consul had ordered the imprisonment, there would be
some written proceedings to show that this was the act cf
the consul; for he supposed that no man fir for the office of
consul would hear an inquiry and order a man to be sent to
gaol for above a month without making some minute of the
charge anti evidence given before him to justify such a sen-
tenee. Nothing of the kind was proved before him, and he
did not suppose that a consul would do all this by word of
mouth merely. If the jury thought the defendant respor-
sib!e fur all the plaintiff bad suffered, the plaintiff was en-
titled to substantial damages for the injuries he had sus-
tained; but be advised them to give such reasonable damages
as tnere was a probability the defendant could pay; other-
wise by their verdict they would ruin the defendant, and the
plaintiff would get nothing.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £5O.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Lord Chief Baton Pollock.)
In the case of Thomes Lewis, who was indicted for having
shot at John Law on the 30th Ma) las:, with intent to kill
and murder him, but in which the evidence did not sustain
the "intent" charged in the ludic meat, Lis lords,dp, ad-
dressing Air. Brett, who appeared fur the prosecution, said
that he sh •uld order the prisoner to be iodic ed for the rids-
demean-,ur of unlaw felly woundinp%
The learneri Chief Baron then took occasion to say that
he bad found numerous cases of " stabbing" charged 11.3
felonies, which gave the calentl-,r a c' a"ac sr whielt it redly
did not 412 serve. In many of them the " intent" required
by the statute to support the charge of felony could nut be
maintained, and the cases resolved themselves Lto misde-
meanours ter " unlawfully wounding'," and as suet, were
properly triable at the sessions at much less expense to the
country, and very much lees inconvenience to the prisonets,
who had in some instances to remain in prison for a long
period awaiting the assizes. In all cases where the use of
a knife had arisen in a mere drunken stpialile, and where
(at the time most probably in a state of intoxication) to
there was clearly no ".r .sent upon t •e part of the prisoner
inflict " grievous bodily harm," in order to render the
well
offence that of felony, it if the magiAtrateQ,
upon investigating be
tie cases, would ascertain
whether the
circumstances were:smelt as he had
indicated, in order that
would
fat
the p:isoners might be more readily dispbsed o the ses-

sionk
In severs] instances cf " stabbing" during the day the
jury, under. bis.ivrdsbip's direction, acquitted the prisoners
«if the "felony," and fOunl them guilty, under Lord Camp-
bell'i Act, of the in!s.iemeanour for unlawfully wounding.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-Aug. 16.
- -

NEW COURT. •
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)
inn. Henry Hunt, 25, clerk, pleaded guilty to !tu-
tit zzling various sums-of money belonging to Non Whiting,
inzwer.
Mr. Orridge prosecuted, and Mr. Sleigh defended.
It appeared that the prisoner been in the service of
the .prosecutor, who is a colonial agent in Mincing-lane, at
a salary of gum a-year, and the f rub, zzlements had been
going on since Fehr u try, 1857, and amounted to dbout Xaio.
Mr. Sleigh urged, in mitigation of
,punishment, the fact
of the prisoner beiug drawn into dillicu:ties from having
assisted his parents.
The prosecutor also recommended ae primer to mercy,
t I.
,1 c
evidence,
idb forne feloniously :sat ioLl.
and he was stltenced to nine months' imprisonment.
Isaac. Jacobs,
e 32, dealer, a respectable-looking Jew, was
I el 'le d
Wileyd the sum of £7 104., for restoring to him a gold watch
uenslyfroatiandhciosrpreurpst,:ryl.
The receiving from John
which was very briefly entered in'o, proved

the following facts:—The prosecutor and a friend were,
upon the night of the Bth July, at a public-house in Cran-
bourn-alley, kept by Massey, the pugilist.. Ile there got
drunk and fell asleep, and 'whilst in that state some of the
company in the house stole his watch, a gold one, which
had cost him 18 guineas. Upon the next day the prosecutor
went to Massey's and spoke to him about the robbery. The
prisoner was at the bar, and after some conversation Massey
referred the prosecutor to the prisoner, who undertook
to get the watch back, and got from the prosecutor the
amount named in the indictment for doing so, of er which
the prosecutor gave him into custody. When first ques-
tioned by the police-constable about the matter prisoner
denied that he had received any money or had returned the
watch ; but afterwards said Massey had asked him to get
the watch back, and that was how he bad got himself into
trouble. Upon the prisoner was found a 103.
Mr. Salter, for the defence, after some discussion with the
learned Commissioner upon the evidence being insufficient
to show a corrupt motive on the part of the prisoner, very
ably contended that nothing bad been proved to lead the
prisoner to suppose the watch had been stolen from the
prosecutor.
The learned Commissioner—That was really the main
point fur their consideration.
The jury asked to look at the watch, which, it appeared,
had been returned by the prisoner without the pendant
how, nod otherwise appearing as if taken from prosecutor
by violent means.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr—Hurry said that, eight years ego, the prisoner had
been convicted of defrauding a man of £3O.
In answer to the Court, the constable said that prisoner
kept the very worst company, and was a frequenter of the
house where the robbery took place. It was one of the
worst in the district. Prisoner was at one time a snt of
waiter at the Piccadilly Sa!oou.

Commissioner-Ali, that is not a proper or regular place,
but I suppose co robberies are committed there.
Constable—Sometimes they are.
The prisoner was sentenced to nine months' imprison-
ment.