The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-30 00:00:00

LA TV IN7

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

;Before the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Alexander Cockburn,

and a Common Jury.)
111CDONALD V. LAIVRIES.

This is an action of damage; for false imprisonmcnt,
on a charge of stealing wood, the property of the defendants
Tho defendants pleadc,l in justification that the w.iod•
was stolen from them, and found in the plaintiff's pos-

session.
The plaintiff was called and examined, and said that he
was employed by the defendants to execute the repairs of
some of the defendants' drains, and he was desired to take
and use the wood in question, The value might be 6s. He
was taken into custody for stealing it, and ho said Cook
had given it to him, but Cock said, " No, I did not give
you all this," and plaintiff was taken to the station-house
and charged with stealing the wood, and ho was locked up

till next day, and then was discharged.
Cross-examined—He was known as a bricklayer and
marine store dealear. Cook told him to take this lot of wood
for the drain. The old wood was not worth the expense of
cartage. Cook did not pick out sound pieces fit for use to
him ; the timber was rotten. He said if it was sound it
would be worth £l. All the timber was taken away in one
cart load to the station. It was old ash wood laid on the
top of the drain.
John Macdonald, who works for his brother, heard Cook
tell him to take the wood away. The wood was not given
up at the station-house.
Wm. Roth, labourer, was in the plaintiff's employment on
the 10th of J une last, and saw the wood in question, but
did not hear Cook give any directions about it.
Henry Stanley said he heard Cook tell the plaintiff to take
the wood.

Charles Hunt, police-constable, said the plaintiff was
brought to the station-house charged with stealing the
wood, value 2s. 6d. ; he was locked up all night, and dis-
charged next day by the magistrate.
Mr. Hanley proved the letters produced, dated 29th Juno
last, applying for compensation, and no answer was re-
turned 19y the defendants. He proposed to try this case in
the county court, and on refusal brought this action before
this court. This closed the case for the plaintiff.
John Cook said ho had been 18 years in defendant's em-
ployment. Remembers on the 12th of June the cesspool
was cleared out. No timber was on it, but flag stones, and
the wood was on the ground. Ile asked plaintiff to take
away the old timber, and he said he could make no use of
it. On 27th June went to plaintiff's house with a constable
and saw several pieces of wood there that I did not authorise
him to take, and told him so. He made no reply. When we
entered the yard he said " There is all the timber I took
away, and I took it away in a light builder's two-wheel
cart." Plaintiff had no authority to take this wood away.
It might be a quarter of a ton. He gave no authority but
to take old wood. (The wood was produced, which appeared
to be an outside cut, rotten.) It is worth about 2d. per foot
superficial. It might be worth 55., but it was charged 2s.
6d. at the station. It was not shown the magistrate, so far
as I know. I asked him to clear the yard, and he said it
was not worth taking away.

At this stage of the proceedings, and on the recommenda-
tion of the Lord Chief Justice, counsel consulted together,
and agreed to take a verdict for £l5 damages for the

plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
O'HARA. V. TIIE LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action brought by tha plaintiff against the
Brighton Railway Company to recover damages for the
injuries sustained by the plaintiff by the late accident in the
Clayton Tunnel.
The defendants did not deny their liability, and paid £5O
into court.

The plaintiff is a young man 2S years of age, a house
decorator and billiard table coverer and marker. He was
one of the passengers by the excursion train that met with
the accident on the 25th of August, when he was thrown
with great violence to the opposite side of the carriage to
that in which he occupied a seat. He received severe injuries
to his head, knee, and other parts of his body, and was so much
injured that he was conveyed to Brighton, and there re-
mained a fortnight under surgical attendance. lie regained
sufficient strength to return to London, but he was advised
to abstain from business for some time. This advice he
followed, but at length, when he determined to resume his
occupation, his sight entirely failed him, and it was for this
injury he demanded compensation of the company.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before Sir Cresswell Creswell.)

lIAIVARDEN V. DUNLOP.

This was a suit instituted;by the plaintiff, Ladyllawarden,
for the purpose of obtaining letters of administration of the
goods and chattels of the late Lord Elphinstone, as sister
and one of the ne .t of kin of deceased. The suit was op-
posed by the defendant, Mr. George Dunlop, who had pro-
pounded a will of Lord Elphinstone, dated the 13th of
February, 1854, in the Commissary Court of Dumbarton-
elAre, end °mauling- tine court or the interlo-
cutor a confirmation of the appointment of executors,
which, according to the law of Scotland, has all
the effects of Probate. The defendant having been
cited to propound the will in this court brought
in the confirmation of the appointment, and prayed the seal
of this court might be affixed to the confirmed, a caveat
being lodged against it by the plaintiff ; and appeal being
in existence in the Court of Session in Scotland, the court
refused the application.
On the case being called on, and before the jury wore
sworn, Mr. M. Smith renewed his application for the seal of
the court being affixed to the confirmation, which was op-
posed by Mr. Sergeant Shee, on the ground that the object
was to shut out the dispute as to the question of domicile.

The learned Judge refused the application.
The learned counsel on both sides then retired into a
private room to endeavour to effect an arrangement of the
suit; and after an absence of an hour and a half they re-
turned, and announced that an arrangement had been made,
by which all the contentious proceedings in this court
should be discontinued, all imputations against Mr. Dunlop
being withdrawn. The exact terms of the arrangement did
not transpire. The case was thus terminated.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Registrar Winslow.)

IN RE W. J. MOORE.

This bankrupt was described as of Camberwell, commis-
sion agent, and this was a meeting for choice of assignees.
Mr. J. B. Sorrell, for the bankrupt, who came up on his
own petition. The debts are about £5OO, and the assets
depend upon the realization of certain reversionary
interests.

Mr. Prance, who had been solicitor for the bankrupt for
a considerable time, tendered a proof, which was objected
to by Mr. Sorrell, and a long examination ensued. It ap-
peared there had been extensive transactions between Me.
Prance and the bankrupt. The proof was ultimately ad-
journed until the next meeting, and assignees were chosen