The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-15 00:00:00

rourttXbitton

SECONDARIES'.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)

FALSE IMPRISONMENT-MACDONALD V. BROXIIOLME

This was a writ of inquiry to assess damages for false
imprisonment, defendant baying admitted his liability by
allowing judgment to go by defhult.
Mr. SI3ION stated the case. The plaintiff is a young
gentleman, a surgeon's assistant, and was formerly in
the service of a gentleman named Brown, from whence
he went to live with the defendant, who is a chemist at
Holloway. In October last a disagreement took place
between the plaintiff and defendant, and the plaintiff in-
sisted on leaving. Defendant, however, charged the
plaintiff with stealing a book, and sent a servant to him
to say that if he would confess that he had taken it and
return the book he (defendant) would forgive him.
Plaintiff, knowing himself' to be innocent, of course
could not comply, and defendant ultimately sent
a policeman, who took the plaintiff into custody
at eight o'clock on the morning of Sunday, the
7th of October, and he was taken to the station-house,
where he was locked up till Monday morning, when he
was taken before the magistrate, and was remanded at
his own request till the next day, when he was admitted
to bail. Whilst plaintiff was in custody ho was searched,
and a key was found, which he said belonged to a box
of his which was at his late master's, Mr. Brown's. The
officer proceeded there and searched the box, and also a
small parcel which had been left by plaintiff with the
servant girl, in which were a few lozenge drops and
other trifling articles, which defendant claimed as his
own.- Plaintiff was tried at the Central Criminal Court,
when defendant admitted .that he had not lost the book,
and the jury stopped the case before the defence was
concluded, and gave a verdict of not guilty.
The Learned Counsel contended that the charge was
completely tramped up, and that the defendant's conduct
was either malicious or had been made to prevent the
plaintiff from claiming the salary he would have been
entitled to at the expiration of six months. He founded
this opinion on the tact that after plaintiff had threatened
to bring an action against defendant for slander in
charging him with stealing the book, defendant told Mr.
Brown that he was obliged:to give plaintiff in charge,
or on the Monday he would have had an action brought
against bim for defamation of character and for wages
The Learned Counsel ccnsidered this a case calling for
heavy damages.
Police-constable, S 154, proved' the apprehension of
the plaintiff under the circumstances described by the
Learned Counsel.
Mr. Brown, son to the plaintiff's former employer,
was called, and proved that the defendant said that if he
had not done as he had he would have had an action
brought against hits for defamation of character and for

wages.
Georgina Borthwick, who was servant to defendant,
proved that he had sent her to plaintiff to charge him
with stealing the book, and defendant said he would
forgive him if he confessed. On another occasion ho
said that he would see the plaintiff hanged. Her master
had spoken to the customers in the shop, and charged
plaintiff with misconduct.
Mr. PARRY cross-examined the witnesses and ad-
dressed the jury in mitigation of damages, urging that
there were reasonable grounds of suspicion to justify
the defendant giving the plaintiff into custody. lie con-
tended that defendant would have been able to prove the
facts, if the action had been for malicious prosecution,
instead of trespass for false imprisonment. The Learned
Counsel denied that there was any malice.
The jury gave a ♦erdict for 701.