Star.
London, England, 1830-06-04 00:00:00

DIXON V. CROOK.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for false imprisonment. The short facts of the case are
as follows :—The plaintiff gave orders to the defendant, a
coachmaker, to build him a chaise, which order was com-
plied with, and the plaintiff ascertaining that the chaise
was finished, went and took it home without saying any
thing to, or obtaining the consent of, the defendant. This
step gave great offence to the defendant, and he procured
a police officer, and gave the plaintiff into custody, on a
charge of fraud. The officer did not use any violence,
but allowed the plaintiff to go by himself to the watch-
house, and afterwards to Queen-square police-office,
where the charge, after a short investigation, was dis-
missed. It was for this imprisonment that the present
action was brought.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the defendant sub-
mitted that as it was proved there had been no violence
used, but the plaintiff dllow•ed to go himself to the watch-
house and police-office, an action fur false imprisonment
could not be supported.
Mr. Justice PARK overruled the objection. His Lord-
ship said it was not necessary to constitute false im-
prisonment that a person should be taken into actual cus-
tody. It was sufficient if it was proved that the de
fendant said to an officer, " take this person (pointing to
the individual) into custody on a charge of felony."—
In this case such a charge had been twice given, and
he therefore thought the plaintiff entitled to recover.
The Jury, after some consultation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff. Damages—One shilling.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to his Lordship to
certify. He thought it was a case that did not entitle the
plaintiff to costs.
Mr. Justice PARKE refused the application.
TOOMBS V. WINTERBOTTOM.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 70/.
under the following circumstances :
The plaintiffs carried on business as drapers at Chelten-
ham ; in the year 1827 they found it necessary to com-
promise with their creditors, who agreed to accept 10s.
in the pound. The defendant objected to accept of this
compromise, or to sign the deed, unless the full amount
of his debt (1401.) was secured to him. After some some
negociation the plaintiffs agreed to give him two bills of
351. each; which being done he signed the deed with the
other creditors. These bills had been paid by the plain-
tiffs, who now brought their action to recover the amount
back on the ground that the transaction was illegal, as
the defendant having signed the deed, it became a frau-
dulent preference.
The facts having been proved in evidence, and Mr.
Por.Loc It heard on behalf of the defendant,

Mr. Justice PA K E said the plaintiffs were clearly en-
titled to a verdict of 701. The defendant having signed
the deed to receive 10s. in the pound, in common with
Ithe other creditors, if there had been any arrangement by
which he was to receive more, it became a fraudulent
preference, and one which a Court of Law never sanc-
tion. It was a fraud upon all parties concerned—on the
creditors generally, on the insolvent's sureties, and on the
insolv•nts themselves. _ .

The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, 701.