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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAA EVENING,

West Awdry—l am under-sheriff for the county of Wilts,
and have been so for several years. I have the writ of ca. sa.
in the action of " Burleigh v. Futcher." I issued a warrant
and sent it to Hinder. It is usual for solicitors to commu-
nicate with the under-sheriff in eve of a settlement. I har
no communication from the .s.:4!e:tor in 13t1r1;.igL's ease with
after the arrest.

Cross-examined—Mr. Lee spoke to me upon the subject
of this arrest on behalf of Futcher. I have no doubt I in-
formed Mr. Lee that I had instructed Hinder. I had not
received any direction from Cox and Sons to proceed upon
this warrant.

Mr. Smith summed up his evidence. The mistake was
not with the defendant er the sheriff, but from the solicitor
of Mr. Burleigh or Mr. Fu teller not having done his duty.
Mr. Slade replied for :the plaintiff upon the whole case.
He hoped this would not be an instance of a great wrong
being suffered without a remedy. They were now twitted
by the standing counsel for the ender-sheriff that they had
gone against the bailiff instead of against the under-sheriff.
But whom were they to sue? They believed the wrong to
be in the bailiff, and therefore, out of kindness to Mr. Awdry,
they did not attack him. Which, then, did they believe—
that fine specimen of a Wilrshire farmer, Mr. Fu•cher, or
the boUnd bailiff of the sheriff. He submitted they would
believe the former. Had they any doubt that that letter had
Bone out of Messrs. Cox's office ? That letter bad never been
returned. If it had not reached its destination, would it not
have been returned ? Or were they to suppose that that
little thief had purloined the letter. If they were of opinion
that the defendant had received that notice of withdrawal,
they must find a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Baron Channell then summed up.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages,
Points of law were reserved.

GARDNER V. GRACE.
Mr. Prideaux was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Stone
for the defendant.

This case, which was an action of trespass for driving a
carriage over the plaintiff; a little boy of four years of age
came on last Friday, but was adjourned to this morning, in
order to give the defendant an opportunity of adding ano-
ther plea. The plea having been added, ►he case was now
called on, and it was arranged that a juror should he with-
drawn upon terms—the defendant paying to the plaintiff
£45, and each party his own costs.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, Aug. 16.
To-day an application was made to Mr. Baron Martin to
know when he would fix to take the special juries.
His Lordship answered that he would not take them
before Friday, but would not fix them. He proposed going
through the list of common juries and special juries in their
order. Complaints had been n3:.de about sending common
jury causes over to the other court to be tried on former oc-
casions, 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 went over to the other court to have their
causes tried.

CIVIL ►SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
MASTERS V. THOMAS.

This was an action for assault and false imprisonment.
The defendant pleaded " Not Guilty," and a justification
that the plaintiff was suspected of a felony on 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 an board a vessel called
the Antonio Varis, and left that ship with a certificate of
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 be 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 had drawn a gallon of rum from a ruin
cask, and asked him what be bad 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
board, the mate, who was a Welshman, spoke to the cap-
tain, who was also a Welshman, in Welsh, and the plaintiff
could 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 he did not
know, 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
in his berth. The plaintiff knew nothing about them, and
had not put them there. 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 be 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 ironsand confined till next day
at 11 o'clock, when he 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 en 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 be kept the man
in custody be did it on his own responsibility. The captain,
then, according to the plaintiff, saw the captain of the port,
and had the plaintiff taken into 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 of 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 bad
not room to lie down. The cell was ill-ventilated, and the
weather hot. This treatment broke down his health, and
boils and glandular swellings broke out upon him. 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, 1 have
4,••• ,/ A • *h., .VtliratOn of 33 days, •ishan the vessej
was ready to sail, be was taken out of the gaol and mareire
in custody down to the ship, where he was put to work as a
common sailor, 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 cast
of a man working in his place, and making it appear that
only £3 were due to hint. 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, fur which he had signed articles.
For the defendant, it was contended that on the charge of
theft against the plaintiff being made 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, bat the mate, who
was in court, was not called.
His Lordship, in summing up, told the jury that tojnstify
a private person in takingatrother into custody a sulr.tantive
felony must be proved, as well as that the person taking such
a step had reasonable ground for believing that the person
charged had cc mrnitted the felony. In this respect private
persons differed from constables, in regard to whom it was a
sufficient just'fication 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 altegethef. The plea of jus-
tification therefore failed. If the jury theuaht that it was the
defendant who caused the plaintiff to be imprkoned, he was
then responsible for all that he bad suffered. If they thought
that the imprisonment was the act of the consul, then a stnall
part of the plaintiff's treatment was all that the defendant
was liable for. But, really, 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 of
the consul ; for he supposed that no man fit for the office of
consul would hear an inquiry and order a man to be sent to
gaol fir above a month without making some minute of the
charge and evidence given before him to jasiify sorb a sen-
tence. 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 respon-
sible for all the plaintiff bad suffered, the plaintiff was en-
titled to substantial damages for the injuries he had sus-
tained; but he advised them to give such reasonable damages
as mere 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 gal
CROWN COURT.
(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock.)
In the case of Thomas Lewis' who was indicted for having
shot at John Law on the 30th May lat.., with intent to kill
and murder him, but in which the evidence did not sustain
the "intent" charged in the indictment, his lordship, ad-
dressing Mr. Brett, who appeared for the prosecution, said
that lie should order the prisoner to be indicted for the mis-
demeanour of unlawfully wounding.
The learned Chief Baron then took occasion to say that
he had found numerous cases of " stabbing" charged as
felonies, which gave the calendar a character which it really
did not daserve. In many of them the " intent" required
by the statute to support the charge of felony could not be
edand the cases resolved themselves into misde-
mmeaainntoariirnsflor " unlawfully wounding," and as such were
properly triable at the sessions at much less expense to the
country, and very much less inconvenience to the prisoners,
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 squabble, and where
there was clearly no i lent upon the part of the prisoner
itst
et rra ttehse,
(at the time most probably in a state of ititoxication) to
harm," in order to render the
t
iwimihoaegetder that
circumstanceso: Rip lettinnccte‘tllga. trloef"lsfe: investigatingelloline huffilyt)rs!;neei
ia'aNs' cases, suh, dewhobauedl would
flislicceiair.tteatdtiltei
the prisoners might be more readily disposed of at the ses-
sions.

In several instances of "stabbing" during the day the
jury, under his lordship's direction, acquitted the prisoners
r‘f the "felony," and found them guilty, under Lord Camp-
bell's Act, of the misdemeanour for unlawfully wounding.