The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-07 00:00:00

RAILWAY SHARES.

Versailles, R.B.—
315 .. 315 .• 310 .. 312 50
R0nen•...................1020 . 1030 —lO2O .4030
Rouen to Havre.
Orleans •
Strasburg to 8a1e.......... 281 25 285 . 281 25 .. 285
Avignon to Marseilles...... 937 50 .. 940 •• 935 .. 935
RAILWAYS FOR TILE ACCOUNT, DEC 16.
St. Germain . 960 930 .• 960 .. 972 50
Versailles, 21.18........445 .. 445 .. 445 .• 445
L.B•••••••••••• 313 75 • 315 •• 310 312 50
Rouen ....................1022 50 —1032 50 ..1022 50 ..1030
Rouen to Havre• • • •• 790 .. 792 50 .. 790 791 25
Orleans
..1070 ..1078 75 ..1070 "1070

Strasburg to 8a1e.......•.. 282 50 .. 286 25 .. 282 50 .. 286 25
Avignon to Marseilles— •• •• 932 50 .. 948 .• 932 50 .• 937 50

THIS DAY'S NEWS

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord DENxAN and a
Middlesex Common Jury.)
LEONARD V. THATCHER.

This was an action to recover damages for an alleged
malicious arrest and false imprisonment. The defendant
pleaded that he was justified in what he had done, inas-
much as the plaintiff had been guilty of felony.
Mr. Platt appeared fur the plaintiff, and Mr. V. Lee
for defendant.

It appeared that there was a sum of money owing
from defendant to plaintiff, and that one night, in the
month of July last, the matter was to have been settled.
The parties met, the one holding the money in his hand,
and the other the receipt. The defendant snatched the
receipt from plaintiff for the purpose, as he said, of seeing
that it was correct before he paid the money. He in-
sisted on detaining the receipt, and eventually the
plaintiff gave him into the custody of a policeman, on a
charge of stealing a receipt stamp, and was locked up at
the station-house all night, and taken before a magis-
trate in the morning and discharged.
Two witnesses named Bates and Fry were called, who
stated that the defendant had in the presence of Fry
said to Bates, " You saw Leonard run round the
corner?" To which Bates replied, " No, I did not; and
I never said so; or if I did say so, it is not true." To
which defendant replied, " If you will swear so I will
pay you handsomely."
For the defence Mr. V. LEE attempted to shake the
credit of these witnesses, and said he should prove that
the plaintiff had snatched the receipt and run off with it.
This he admitted was not a justification, but it was ten-
dered for the purpose of reducing the damages.
Lord DENMAN thought the evidence inadmissible.
The plea was not that there was probable cause for the
arrest, but that the plaintiff had committed a felony.
Now, that could not be proved, and therefore there must
be a verdict for theplaintiff.

Mr. V. LEE would not then call any witnesses.
Lord DENMAN in summing up said, there could be no
doubt that the plaintiff had acted improperly in detain-
ing the receipt, but that 'as not felony, and he was en-
titled to damages for being locked up all night. At the
same time the jury were not to consider anything that
defendant might have said to Bates, because the plaintiff
had not suffered any inconvenience additional in copse.
pence, and this was an action fur trespass, merely to
recover damages for the assault and false imprisonment.
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 151.