The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Fs's. 15
ROGERS v. JONES. -

This was an artionby the plaintiff, a draper residing at Dover,
to recover a compensation in 'damages from the defendant, the
Marshal of the King's Bench prison, for suffering the eA•ape of
a prisoner who bad been, committed to his custody at the suit of
the plaintiff.

Madame Henrietta St. Cossary, residing at Calais, had been in
the habit of dealing largely with the plaintiff. The _plaintiff be-
coming apprehensive that he should not be paid, in June, 1825,
caused her to be arrested at Dover for a balance of an account
amounting to P 74/. After remaining in Dover gaol till the sth
of July, the plaintiff procured a writ of habeas corpus, by which
she was removed to the King's Bench prison, from whence she
shortly after escaped to France. An admission of the debt by the
plaintiff having been proved, which was objected to by the
counsel for the defendants as inadmissable against a third person,
-for the defendant it was contended, that there was no sufficient"
proof of the debt; and that the plaintiff having neglected to ob-
tain judgment against Madame St. Cessary in the local Court at
Dover, which was held every week, as the prisoner had been re-
moved by his means to the custody of the defendant, there was
reason to suppose that it had been contemplated :that a better
chance of payment might be obtained by the possibility of her
escape, than by her confinement in Dover gaol, where such an
event was impossible, and the defendant could not be rendered
liable.

The LORD CHIEF JusTtcv. left it to the Jury to say whether,
under the circumstances, the plaintiff would, by the confinement
of his debtor, have been more likely to have received the payment
of his debt. The plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, but it was
for the Jury to determine what loss he bad sustained in conse-
quence of the escape..--Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 1741.

HICKS V. JONES.
This was a similar action against the defendant for the escape
also of Madame St. Cossary. ^Evidence having been produced of
her having been arrested at The same time by the plaintiff for the
sum of 1501., principally for lace with which he had furnished
het.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, only question for the con-
sideration of the Jury was, what damages the plaintiff had sus-
tained. He also had neglected to obtain judgment against his
debtor in the Court of Dover, which he might have done during
her confinement there from the sth of June to the sth of July.
The Jury should ask themselves seriously whether, if she had not
escaped, they could believe that the money would have been
forthcoming. The question of damages was one peculiarly for
their consideration.—Verdict for the plaintiff—damages 150/.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that as the principal
charges in the plaintiff's bill were for lace supplied to this French
milliner, he supposed it was re-sold and brought hack to this
country for French lace.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-JAN. 15.
WILLIAM HENRY NEALE V. SIR THOMAS TURTON, BART. AND

OTHERS.

Mr. Sergeant TAM' stated that this was an action upon two
bills of exchange, the one for 115/., and the other for 115/. Ss.,
drawn by the plaintiff, dated March 6, 1826, .payable three months
after date, and accepted by the defendants, who were the directors
of the London Patent Steam Washing Company : there wag also
a further claim of 140/. 19e., for goods sold and delivered after
the date of the bills. The plaintiff was a dealer in hay and corn,
and had supplied the horses of the company with those articles at
their stables at Phipsbridge, in Surrey, and in John-street, Black-
friars ; it was for these articles that the bills had been given, but
when they became due, the defendants did not pay them, and re-
fused to acknowledge the debt which had since been incurred.
Mr. Buxton, the secretary to the company, proved that the
signature to the bills was in his handwriting.
Mr. Edward Neale, the brother of the plaintiff, proved the de-
livery of the hay, &c., by his own teams; and also proved the
handwriting of the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant VAtinuaw appeared for all the defendants, with
the exception of Mr. Fry, for whom Mr. Serjeant Wzenz and
Mr. Moony appeared.

They stated in the first place, that they would show that the
plaintiff was himself a partner in the company, and being such,
they contended he. could not maintain an action against the Di-
rectors. In the next place they would show, that the witness
Edward Neale was in partnership with plaintiff, and therefore his
evidence must be struck out, as he must be considered an in-
terested witness ; and they submitted, that the plaintiff being in
partnership, could not bring an action individually, which would
be for the benefit of both.

The Jury returned their verdict for the plaintiff.
nicmaansom V. SEAGAR.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for 50/., accepted by
the defendant. The hand-writing of the drawer, and of Seagar,
the acceptor, were proved. For the defendant, it wa; contended
that he had never accepted the bill, and that his name must have
been forged. Several documents were produced bearing his sig-
nature, which appeared slightly different from that to the bill. -
The different signatures were shown to the Jury, and the
Learned Judge left it to them to say whether they believed the
defendant to have actually accepted the bill; if so, their verdict
would be for the plairititf.—Verdict for the plaintiff.