Star.
London, England, 1825-04-21 00:00:00

BRADLEY V. ARTHUR.

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE mentioned this case, which
it will be recollected was an action of false imprison.
ment, involving important questions of militai y autho-
rity and discipline. Mr. Brougham had moved for a
new trial, and the Court thought it would be desirable
that the points he wished to raise should be brought
before them in the form of a special case. The Counsel
were unable to agree on the facts which should be
stated ; and the Lord Chief Justice having been applied
to for his decision, thought the difference so important.
that no single Judge ought to settle it. The case, there-
fore, should „go into the new trial paper, as of Mi.
chaelmas Teim.
4Vlr. BROOGNAII expressed a hope that the case would not come
on to-day or to-morrow.
The Loan Cuter Justice replied, " Certainly not:" he had
mentioned the case thus early in the Term that Gentlemen on both
sides might have time to prepare for the discussion.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIL 20.
GARDNER v. WEDD AND THREE OTHERS.

Mr. Serjeant WILDE moved for a Rule to shew cause
why a general verdict should not be entered in this case.
The action was tiled before Mr. Baron Graham. It
was an action for an assault and false imptisonment, in
which a verdict was found for the plaintiff, damages
one farthing for the assault, but the imprisonment was
I not allowed. He now wished the verdict to be entered

Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.

generally, on the ground that the Learned Judge at the
trial gave liberty to move to that effect. The action
arose from a dispute respecting tithes. The Parson of
the parish and his parishioners had disagreed (neither
the name of the Rev. Gentleman nor his parish were
mentioned), and the Parson, to smooth the business,
gave a general invitation to his parishioners to settle all
their disptres regarding the tithes over a good dinner.
The parishioners attended, and after dinner, instead of,
sober sentiments, they regaltd themselves freely over
the Parson's wine by drinking most uproarious toasts
againstihe'Par son and his clerk, such as " Damnation
to the Parson and his clerk"—(Great lieighier). The
clerk of the pari,h, as in duty ,boand, felt offended at
the extreme liberality o' the toasts, and remonstrated,
on which, from words tl.ey proceeded to blows. The
defendant and three a-thers took hold of the clerk and
turned him out cif doors.
The Lotto Cniir Rams—Was the turning him out of the
room false imprisonment ?—(Laugkier). • _

Mr. Serjeant Witot—NO, my Lord; tke false imprisontnt.
consisted in keeping the plaintiff in a chair while they carried him
out of the, room.by main force. The chair was in a comer of the
room, and they held hint there against his will and consent, while
they took him up in their arms and carried him out of ,the hone.
He did not know what period pf time constituted false imprison-
' trent, but the Clerk was detained flout the free exercise of his
'theny by the constraint of the defendants.'
Tlik Loin Cum& Jusrlek—i see no imprisonment at all in this
Case. and the Learned Judge who'presided ar ther*trial seems to
have been of the mune opinion. The good parishioners only kept
the clerk in the chair to prevent his tumbling out, while they pro.
ceeded to give him his liberty in the fresh air—( fuelt laughter).
We cannot grant the inotionv—Alotiou refused.