The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-03 00:00:00

Übirb Vbitton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Cloch.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron GURZCZY and a
Common Jury.)
The following undefended case] were disposed of at the
sitting of the Court this morning. In each cause verdicts for
the plaintiff were given. With one exception they were to
recover the amounts of certain bills of exchange :—Sane v.
Ashcroft, 1851. ss, 6d.; Driver v. Sparks, 541. 19$. sd. ; Hill
v. Norrington, 301. 9s. 10d. ; Turner t; Swaby, 183/. 195.;
Hall r. Ryall, 301. ss.
Baron GurtiEv intimated to the bar that as there were a
number of acrons for bills of exchange, he should give them
precedence of other causes which were on the paper for to-
morrow, and which were likely to occupy some time. He
therefiore requested that gentlemen of the bar engaged in such
causes, and their witnesses, would be in attendance at an
early hour. _ .

SEAGR.4.I7E V. E(GLAND.
Mr. Humfrey appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Petersdorff
for the defendant.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for an alleged illegal trespass and illegal ejectment. The de-
fendant pleaded that he was not guilty of a trespass, and
that he was acting in the capacity of servant to
another. The damages were laid at 800/. The circumstances
of the case, as detailed by the Learned Counsel for the plain-
tiff and in evidence, are briefly these :—The plaintiff; Ann
Seagrave, who is a widow, entered into an agreement with
the defendant, Louis England, a house agent, carrying on
business in New South-street, Islington, to rent a house, the.
property of a Mr. Pocock, situated at No. 44, Swinton-street,
King's-cross, at a yearly rent of 42/., and entered into the
occupation of the premises on the 10th of JUly, 1843,
whilst they were under repair. A few days after the de-;
fendant intimated to -her that the proprietor of the
house was displeased with him for letting the. house to
a person who had not a regular income, and said that she
mu: t :we the house. Mrs. Seagrave, however, declined to
accede to his revert, as she had fairly and legally entered on
the premises.- linding that he could not get her to vacate
the house, he resorted apparently to a mostextraordinary
and illegal mode of effecting his purpose. He employed se-.
veral nteu to remain in the house, who were plentifully sup-
plied with beer and tobacco, and whose noise, which ap-
peared to have been of a boisterous character, was thought
likely to have the' effect of frightening Mrs. Seagrave from
the premises. But the plaintiff was obdurate, and resisted
so olmexious a mode of ejectment with imperturbable perse-
verance: The defendant then resorted to another mode of
driving the plaintiff from the premises. He visited
the house, and intimated that he should compel
her to leave, anti on being remonstrated with by a lady
who was about to become the plaintiff's tenant, he said
he would " turn her (plaintiff) out neck and crop" if further
remonstrance were used. a even carried his violence on
this occasion so far that a person, named Mrs. Michain,
fainted, and diedin two days afterwards. The defendant did
not, however, commit any further trespass at that time, but
in a few days employed persons to take her furniture into the
street, who also compelled the plaintiff to leave the house,
be knocking her down and carrying her into the street,
e.:.here they laid her on the pavement, and used so muck
violence that her arm was bruised, and she was confined to
her bed for a fortnight. It was, therefore, contended, that the
plaintiff had sustained considerable injury, in a pecuniary.
.sense, from this alleged misconduct on the ple t of the de-
fendent.
Mr. PETERDORF addressed the jury at considerable length
on the part of the defendant, wham he contended acted
legally in ejecting-the plaintiff from the house, who had not
signed the agreement, and that she had obtained possession
by unfair means ; in fact, that he *Weed the plaintiff to go
with him before a magistrate to have the matter adjudicated ;
and that at the time the furniture and the plaintiff were
forcibly removed he had two policemen in attendance
to see that no breach of the peace was committed. The de-
fendant merely acted in the capacity of clerk and collector
to the proprietor of the house. If Mrs. Seagrave was the
respectable person stated to be by the Learned Counsel, she
could have had no difficulty in obtaining another house, and
thus sustain no pecuniary Toss. No evidence had been pro-
duced to Show that the furniture had sustained any injury.
Witnesses.were then called in support of this view of the
case, via., the plaintiff's tenantcy- of the house, which,
however, was not clearly proved. One stated, that "Mrs.
Seagrave was carried out as carefully as a baby ;" and that
no unnecessary violence was used either towards her or her
furniture, and. that the promised to go out two days before
the ejectment; that she obtained the key and possession
of the house surreptitiously. Another policeman,
who attended at the honse on the day in question
to see that no breach of the peace was committed, also stated
that no violence was used. -Mr. Pocock, the proprietor of the
house, said he never sanctioned the letting of the house to the
plaintiff, and he directed him to put her out, as she was there
without his authority. An agreement was prepared but never
signed by the plaintiff, because he disapproved of it.
Mr. Hummel.- having replied,
Baron Gcne thin summed up the evidence, and the jury
having cousulted;f4r some time,the foreman stated that there
was no probability; of their coining to a determination.
,Baron GURNEY desired them to retire and consider their
verdict. _ _

The jury returned into Court at a quarter to four o'clock,
after an absence of two hours, with a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages 50/.

COURSE OF EXCHJ
Amsterdam CF. 12 5
Ditto, at sight l2 3
Lotterilani 2U. 12 31
Antwerp 25 95
llamburgh 51.8. 13 15
Alton - 13 15
Paris, 3 days' sight..; 25 70
Ditto, 3 ►months 25 90
Marseilles
Bourdeaux
Fraint;t4t on Maine
Petersburgb, 3Us 3t4
Berlin 7
Vienna, effee. fl. 351 955
ideate, ditto
Madrid. 364
Cadiz
Bilbao 36
Barcelona 36
Sevilla

LNGE.—(rms DAY.)
Gibraltar
Leghorn 3O 55
Genoa 25 90
Milan
Venice 47
Naples .
PalennO, per oz ll7
Lisbon 524
Oporto s3i
Rio Janeiro 23
Bahia 23
Buenos Ayres
NewYork,2ldyssight
Philadelphia
PRICES OF BULLION, TER oz.
Foreign Gold, bars. £3 17 9
Portugal Gold Coin 3 17 5
New Doubloons-- 0 0 0
Sew Dollars 0 4
Silver in Bars 0 4 11j

SPIRT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAT.
GLOBE.—Another of those instances in which party
politics are permitted to interfere with the removal of
acknowledged existing evils was afforded last night in the
House of Lords. Lord Campbell some time since intros.
duced - a Bill for their Lordships' consideration, the
object of which was to allow persons convicted of felonY
or misdenteanour, who appealed from the decision .of
the Court be which they had" been tried, _on errors
assigned on tile record, to the House of Lords as the court
of final appe4 to remain at large on bail until the questioe
as to the legality of, the conviction should be finally decided.
The necessity of such a measure was not denied. ' The
Lord Chancellor himself, who succeeded in inducing
their •Lordeisips to - reject the Bill, admitted the
grievance which the existing state of the law inflicts
on such parties. It ought to be removed; but not just
yet.. Is thee reason asked? It is at hand. O'Connell;
and his co-defsndants in the proceedings now pending in
the Court of' Queen's Bench, Dublin, might be preserved
from imprisbninent, pending the argument on a writ
of error, if the Bill should be allowed to pass. The law
is to remain in a ridiculous, absurd, and inequitable
state, in order that a political opponent may be subjected
to imprisonnient on a conviction which may be declared
illegal. This Lod Lyndhurst was compelled to admit
was the real ground of his opposition to the Bill. Yet this
reason a majority-of. the House of Lords deemed sufficient s
and-acting, as usual in such matters, under the advice of the
NOble Lords on the Woolsack, they threw out the
Bill. The Marquis of Clanricarde " repeated that
the Noble and Learned Lord's opposition to the Bill
was founded on the circumstance that, if the Bill passed,
they would not be able wrongfully to imprison certain
parties now under trial in Ireland. Ile would leave
tto it Lordships ts judge whether this was a proper spirit with
-which to view Acts of Parliament relating to affairs in Ire-
land. The Noble and Learned Lord could not deny that
the effect of the-Bill was, as far as it went, to improve the
laW, and if injustice was done under the existing law, were
they to reject this Bill, which amended that law, because
it. might lead to some particular result in an individual case ?"
STANDARD.—Lord Campbell's Bill, in aid of the dilatory
proceedings of the Irish convicted conspirators, was last night
rejected in the -I louse of Lords without a division. The mo-
tien for referring the Bill to Committee (the stage in which it
nret its fate) gave rise to a highly interesting debate.
Before referring particularly to that debate, let us offer
eternal:ls upon its general tenour. The supporters of the
Bill relied upon the universal feeling of the country as to the
defective state of the law with .regard to.the power of ape
pealing in criminal cases. The opponents of the measure;
freely admitting the defective state of the law in the particular
described, objected to the Bill heiore the House, as
being. subject to -suspicion, front. •being brought in.
to meet a spedial case, and mere confidently ob-
jected to it as not 'supplying the required remedy. This
ground of oppositisa, it' 4iitepported in the -matter ofTact, is
surely -sufficient.. We may admit. an evil, doubtless, without
being bound to accept everything that is offered in the shape.
of a remedy, and- we are entitled to examine the
nostrum tendered with some jealousy, when we have
reason to suppose,: either from the quality of the
remedy iesele or from some other circumstances, that
it is offered with ,a 'tiew. to private . advantage, and not
to' the public good. Now, in the case of Lord Campbell's
Bill, the evil to be remedied is not disputed. It is acknow-
ledged
notsisles that our criminal jurisprudence is greatly
‘t"ows'allan appellate jurisdiction, extend
convictions,ing craves of
tit .and extending to the
merits as Welt as -to
Ae technicality of the original
trial and conviction,
attainable in Cases of it of error is practically
niisdetriveAr flour only; but in these cases
it is, considering its use as a means of delay, perhaps too
easily attainable (for whatever be
cases
a lsaelsv,
oi
ft ifseilnonpyracitticies
considered due es debit() justetiCe.
scarcely ever asked for, because there
cases of mis-
demeanour here is little hope
court
of its being ever granted ; and neither
demeanour nor felony can the of appeal, upon
a Writ. of error, take into consideration the merits of the case,
that_ is, the justice or injustice of a conviction
beyond a mere-technicality. A writ of error is' Oarlsaona3nlLbeoinxrgd-
iwnsiee process, and always must remain such .
and
Campbell's proposition, if it would not make the process
snore expensive, would by another. means (the demand of
heavy bail) limit the benefit of his remedy to the richer
class of appellants. What we have said of the inadequacy
of the remedy by writ of error, may be applied to the remedy
by motion for new trial. It does not extend to felonies, audit
to:siclies the merits only in the case where the judge misdirects
i
the jury bylaw misstating or evidence, or where the jury
finds against the
judges coarge --things, to a super-
-11431 observer only,' will seem to cover every possible
arse of a false verdict. 'Now, how could this defective state
of the law be improved bya law like that of Lord Campbell,
ii law that would merely relieve appellants "in error" from
j olt.rmeat until the determination of their appeal,_ they
heavV bail? the remedy excludes all con-
' di 'lts of Mons., how trifling soever the felony may be;
re!omilv, it excludes all appellants but the rich, all. who
ca mot give heavy bail. Let us pause here—pause to look at
one -effect of this proposition. No rich man would ever
receive judgment-,—in a case of serious misdemeanour,
Ivithont trying the chances of a writ of error. As
a rieb man be has already given bail to the trial, but
upon eonyictien he has only to give the same bail
to the writ oferror, and he will insure a respite from judg-
NEAysinint,fojr,,lt.eznoy two. If a political offender, he may
NIP; I tour, in attendance on the return to
r e party with whom he can make a bar-
: I-01n, or in. the hope of bargaining with* the party in
offite. If a bold man' as as well ars
political offender, he
71' remain at home prosecutinsedition, while the
of his writ of-error drags prosecuting
slow length along from
el-ke • • "A''
ti
11: b.

"-;.(