The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-30 00:00:00

HARRIS V. ANDREWS.

This was an action for an arrest and false imprisonment
brought by Richard James Harris, a military gentleman,
against John Andrews, a gentleman carrying on business in
Pall Mall.

The case as it afterwards appeared in• evidence, was stated
at some length by Sir F. POLLOCK. The brother of the plain-
tiff, who is a clergyman of the Church of England, having
accepted a bill of exchange, which got into the hands of the
brother of the defendant, he sued out a writ, and placed it in
the hands of a sheriff's officer to execute. The present plain-
tiff was arrested on the suggestion of the defendant instead
of his brother, and the present action was brought to recover
compensation for the injury sustained thereby. He need not
tell the Jury that the insult and ignominy involved in the cir-
cumstance of a man being unwarrantably dragged from his
house through the public streets, by the carelessness of others,
ought never to exist. He would state distinctly, that he cor-
dially agreed with his Learned Friend near him, (the At-
torney-General) in his sentiments upon that subject;- and,
notwithstanding he had the honour to address a jury of gen-
tlemen, many of whom might perhaps differ from him, he would
fearlessly express his opinion, that the system of arrest for debt,
the object of which was to screw and press, and by the force of
that pressure obtain more than other creditors would be en-
titled to, was one which ought not to exist. While expressing
that opinion he believed he was giving expression to what was
now the general feeling among the commercial and trading
classes of this country. He had had the honour of commu-
nicating much upon the subject with a considerable number of
gentlemen in the same station of life as the Jury, and he
would say that he never met more candour and intelligence
than among that class, or a more general feeling in favour of
the abolition of arrest for debt than among the trading classes
of the country. Whatever therefore might be expected from
other measures of his Learned Friend, in all of which he ( Sir
F. Pollock) could not be supposed to agree, it was certain
that there was a universal and increasing feeling in favour of
the doing away with the powers of arrest for debt. Whether
the system was to continue part of the law—whether it was
considered by one patty as a necessary protection to trade, or
by another as a hardship which should be speedily got rid of;
one thing was certain that when the process of arrest is re-
sorted to, and when a man exposes his fellow-citizen to
the opprobrium of being arrested and dragged from his
home, and attempts to consign him to the disgrace and infamy
of a prison, he should be cautious not to expose an innocent
person to that disgrace and infamy. He believed it was a fact
well known, and it was one of the worst features of the system,
that when a man was once arrested and consigned to a prison
—whether it was for an hour or a moment, be loses his self-

esteem—he forfeits the respectability of his character as a
tradesman, or as a free and independent gentleman, and the

foul stain attaches to him during all his proceedings in after
life. He did not complain' in the present instance, that the
plaintiff had received much personal or pecuniary injury ; but
the disgrace and insult to which he had been exposed was one
in which the Jury would sympathise, and he was satisfied they
would give such damages as he was entitled to under all the
circumstances. It might be treated as a matter of little mo-
ment by his Learned Friend (Mr. Platt), but the arrest, whe-
ther for a moment or a day, was still an interference with the
liberty of the subject, which, as Englishmen, he was satisfied
they would not countenance.
__ _

Margaret Kelsey resides at No. 57, Berkeley-street. The
plaintiff lodged with her, and a person brought a note to the
Reverend Mr. Harris, on the morning of the 30th of June.
Witness said she did not know if the Reverend Mr. Harris
was in her house. The plaintiff, Captain Harris, was out at
the time, and when be returned she heard a noise outside, and
saw the person who brought the note speak to Mr. Harris. Mr.
Harris said, "I am not the man." Another person said, "It
is the man, I could swear to his voice." Mr. Harris then went
away with the others, and returned in about an hour.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—The Rev. Mr. Harris oc-
casionally called to see his brother. The two brothers are
very much alike, and it is almost impossible to distinguish
their voices.

Maurice Levi, a Sheriff's officer, went on the 30th of June
with the defendant to Berkeley-street, to arrest the Rev. Mr.
Harris. Witness first sent his man to the door to inquire for
him. Shortly afterwards saw the plaintiff coming up the street,
and Mr. Andrews, the defendant, came up to him and said,
" I believe you are the Reverend Mr. Harris." The plaintiff
said. "I am not my name is not the Rev. Isaac Harris."
Witness said, " You had better be sure that this is the right
person." Defendant requested the plaintiff to accompany the
officer to his house, while he would go for. his brother, who
knew the Reverend Mr. Harris. The plaintiff refused to go
into his house. He refused to tell what his name was.
Defendant then proposed that all three of them should
take a coach, and go down to Pall-mall, to his
brother. The plaintiff refused—he said "If you think lam
the Rev. Mr. Harris, you may take me ; but I will not go
any where but to the county prison." Witness again said to
the defendant, " If you are not positive this is the right per-
son, we had better go away." Defendant said, "I am posi-
tive. I know him by his voice." Witness refused to take
him, unless defendant would indemnify him, which he pro-
mised to do. They then proceeded towards Whitecross.
street Prison, and at St. Giles's some altercation took place
between the plaintiff and defendant. The latter said, " I
wonder, as a gentleman and'a clergyman, you are not ashamed
to endeavour to pass yourself off for another." The plaintiff
called him a liar. In Holborn, a Mr. Loyd, one of the par-
ties to the bill of exchange, drove up in a cab, and shook his
head at witness, to imply that plaintiff was not the right per-
son, and he was then let go. Defendant, on witness's sug-
gestion, offered him some compensation, but ho refused, and
said, " I will punish you for this." There was nothing in his
dress that would show he was a military marn
Mr. PLATT addressed the Jury for the defendant. It was
evident that his Learned Friend Lad properly characterized
the case as one of very little importance. The inconvenience
to which the plaintiff had been exposed arose principally from
his own obstinacy in refusing to tell his name, or to accompany
the defendant to his brother's residence in a carriage, where
the necessary explanation would have been made without any
violence to the feelings of the plaintiff. With respect to the
system of arrest for debt, he would be glad to know why a
person should not have the means of enforcing the payment of
his just debts ? It seemed that his Learned Friend, in the
absence of any materials upon which to make a statement to
the Jury, bud adopted a strain of humanity on the present
occasion, and attempted to throw some odium upon the pro.
cess of arrest for debt, without the matter having in reality
anything to do with the case before them.
Lord DENMAN told the Jury that in this case the plaintiff
was clearly entitled to their verdict, he having been arrested
without legal warrant. It would be for them to say what
damages he was entitled to, and upon this point he would offer
no observations but would leave the amount to their decision.
The Jury found for the plaintiff-- damages 5/.

EXCHEQUER COURT,-(THIS DAY