Star.
London, England, 1809-10-05 00:00:00

CILEI.7I:R SUMMER ASSIZES. -4

PALS, IMP! ISONMENT--11ASSEY V. JORICiON, ESQ.

Mr. TOTTING opened thi'; case in a very eloquent
speech. He assured the Jury, that k was with the
mine:vat concern he was called upon, as Counsel for
the plaintiff, to state %is cause of complaint against
the defendant; an I Lis concern arose from his having
knowh thedelendant almost from his earliest infant...
But, however unpleasant, the ofSca of an advocate
might be upon such an occasion, he could not, from
personal consideration, shrink from the discharge. of
his dety.. The complaint against the defendant was,
that, without any reasonable or probable-ground, he
had caused the plaintiff to be imprisoned, and de-
tained in prison a considerable time. The plaintiff,
seine time previous to the transaction out of which
this action anise, had been carrying on business, with
credit, in the inimedi.tte neighbourhood of Mr. John-
son, who was a gentleman of fortune, and a Justice
of the Peace. His pre-nises were attached to those of
the defendant, who conseqeently must, from that cir-
cumstance, hare been well acquainted with his situa-
tion. The -plaintiff
,had, unfortunately, married a
woman, who turned oat a dissolute and profligate
character ; deserted by his wife, his domestic con-
cerns were not atterded. to, and he became embar-
raved in his circumstances ; he went to London, to
endeavour, if possible, to arrange his affairs with his
creditors; advantage was taken- of his absence, and
he was made a bankrupt ; he.stinendered hinuelf to
•.his commission, and returned to Londoq, where he
foll into the haads of a remorseless ,creshter;
though the bankruptcy had depeived him of -all his
property,- cut-him into prison. He remained in the
prison of Ludgate upwards of-a twelvemonth, and
s was known to the sallfenclant. He was at leneth
relieved, through the humanity of the Attorney who
had been employed against hitt ; and who, pitying
his forlorn and distressed state, furnished him with a
small sum of money, with which to purchase decent
el:thes. Alter having been sixteen months imprison-
ed, he was no sooner at liberty, than be set out to see
a relation, sear Chester, from whom he had some
expectations. The defendant was informed of his re-
; and, tfustigh he iris well acquainted with the
helpless situation he had been in, be thought proper
to issue a warrant for his apprehension, upon a charge,
unsupported by any evidence, that he had left his wife
and family chargeable to the parish. The warrant
stated, that complaint of the fact had been made by
a person of the name of Smith, the overseer (tribe
parish. The Learned Counsel proceeded to state,
that, upon this warrant, the plaintiff was arrested ;
that-he was sent as a vagrant to the common prison ;
afterwards brought up to the Sessions, with the worst
felons, and, upon the represeatation of the delinadatt
to the Bench of Justices, again remanded. It was
suggested to him, that he might bx released, if he
would dispose of the premises which adjoined those
of the defendant ; hut this the plair.tiff could not do,
he having, by the bankruptcy, been divested of his
interest. He was accordingly ccittintted in a state of
ccuiinement till a subsequent Sessions, when he was
dischargq.:d. For this injury he soogil a compen,ati
is damages. The Learned Counsel trustcd, that, As
111.!1.:.; was, no reasonable pretence for the impr:sln-
meat, the Jury would award that comj.ens•ttion
which would have the effect of deterring the delft-
skint from committing sim lir acts of injustice.

The facti stated were proved ; and it appeared by
the evidence of Smith, the overseer, that he had never
made any complaii.i. of vagrancy against the plaintiff,
and, consequently, t'iat the defendant had unjustifia-
bly used his name, for the purpose of apprehending
t.lie plaintiff, upon the pretence of his having deserted
his family. •
;;Ross addressed the Jury in behalf of the de-
fendant. " His Client," he said, " had no anxiety
ab to the revrlt of the verdict ; but he was extremely
anxious that it should not be understood he was a man
capable of acting in an oppressive manner towards
any person, particularly a neighbour. He was an
active and upright Magistrate, whose only object was
honestly to perform the duties his office imposed upon
He had been informed repeatedly, by the aver-
that the plaintiff had left his wife and children
clargeable to the p. 16.41-1114 had been constantly
relieved, and when he found the plaintiff was in the
neitzliboufrd, and had not sought after- his family,
I,•_. thought himself bouircl to adopt the nieasures 'he
did. Che plaintiff was well dressed, and made -an
appearance at if he was perfectly able to maintain his
family ; and he had been' repeatedly told the defen-
dant had no wish to commit him, if he would under-
take to allow them something, but he bad obstinately
refils?.l to do so."

•-• B.:veral witnesses were examined on the part of the
.„deferhiant, who proved that the plaintiff had been is
.„*4e neighbovhood of his family, and was preparing
v, depart, without svcing Lein, or inquiring -after
t errs, when he was taken into custody.
Mr. l'oPrnic replied. lie contended, that the de.
fence had not removed the plaintiff's claim to exens..:
4plary damages.
RODF.itr DALE. 3 sh€rtly addressed the Jury,
obsrzsing, that it seemed to be admitted the srarramel