The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-18 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the
Lord Chief Baron and a Common Jury.)
TEARL V. OASTLER AND ANOTHER.

Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Parry, and
Mr. T. Atkinson were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr.
Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice appeared for
the defendants.

The plaintiff is a saddler and horse milliner,
carrying on his business at Friendly-place, Old
Kent-road, and the defendants, Oastler and Palmer,
are the well known army contracters, trading under
the name of Alex. Ross and Co. The action was
brought against Oastler and Palmer, and Tomlins,
as their foreman, for illegally and without any pro-
bable cause searching the plaintiff's premises for
stolen goods. _ .

It appeared from the plaintiff's evidence and that
of 1115 Wile iilla Oci rant, rviioorn...ll in plain
clothes called on the 28th of March last, and, after
giving their names and saying that they were con-
stables, went on to say that a quantity of leather
had recently been stolen, and asked permission to
examine the premises, which was at once granted,
and after a careful examination by the officers they
went away, saying that they were satisfied that no
portion of the stolen property was upon the pre-
mises. On the following morning at 11 o'clock
they returned, accompanied by Tomlins, who repre-
sented himself to be foreman to Oastler and Palmer,
and asked permission to make another search. The
plaintiff declined, alleging that he had been suffi-
ciently inconvenienced by what had occurred on
the previous evening, and that they must produce
a search warrant before he should admit them.
However, without saying any more, the three per-
sons entered the house, and remained there about
three hours searching every room in it, but found
no part of the stolen property. The plaintiff corn.
plaiued that he had been seriously injured in his
business by the publicity the transaction had
acquired, and that some of his goods in trade had
been injured during the search.
Mr. O,stlor, for the defence, stated that he never
had given authority to any person to search the
plaintiff's premises, neither was he aware that such
a thing had been done until he received a letter
from the plaintiff's attorney, communicating that
fact among other things ; that the officers who
made the search had been employed by the firm in
a case where two persons named Crowder and Wil-
son were taken into custody, and convicted of
stealing or receiving leather.
Mr. Palmer was next called, and swore that Mr.
Oastler knew nothing of the affair, as he was out
of town at the time, and that he personally gave
no authority to the police to search.
Tomlins, the foreman, said that Mr. Palmer told
him to go and see if there was any property that
belonged to the firm, and that he went with the
policeman to the plaintiff's and saw him, the police-
man telling the plaintiff who the witness was, and
that the plaintiff led the way upstairs and sorted
out some pieces of leather which the witness swore
belonged to the defendants. One of the officers
was turning over some things when the plaintiff
came up and asked him not to damage them in
doing so. Some pieces which he recognised the
plaintiff said he had had for four years, when the
witness replied that that could not be so, as the
pattern from which they were cut had not been
from India for so long a time, the contract not
being made for them till April, 1858. He touched
nothing but what was banded to him, and they
were there only three-quarters of an hour together.
The plaintiff made an offer to them to search the
bedrooms, which was declined. The officers had
some of the pieces of leather in a handkerchief, and
said that if they took them away the witness must
give the plaintiff into custody, which he declined
to do.

Both the officers were called, one of them saying
upon cross-examination that Palmer told Tomlins
to go with them to assist in searching the plain-
tiff's house.

After his lordship had very carefully sammcd
up the facts, the jury found a verdict against two
of the defendants only—viz., Palmer and Tomlins
—Damages, £75.
The case occupied the whole day.