Star.
London, England, 1816-11-12 00:00:00

LAW

NOUISH st: KILL! AND ANOTHIR —Trespass, to
ascertain the limits of two adjoining Parishes, tried
before Mr. Justice Parke, at Exeter.
In the following casts the Court refused to grant
neve trials :
• HA mats v. aarrost—Action of trespass upon 11th
Geo. 11. c. 19. s. 2. for removing goods off the pre-
mists to prevent the distraining for rent in arrear, by
the landlord, tried sot Salop, before Justice Abbott.
BLltkfilr v. 0611 RN a—Action for goods sold aid de.
livered, tried belore Lord Ellenburongh, at Guildhall.
At one o'clock Lord ELLesiaonotrou held his first
sitting in 'Term, but the causes were chiefly wide.
tended.

DEVIS NULL.
This was an action against the defendant, to re-
cover damages for a malicious charge of felony exhi-
bited against the plaintiff, without any reasonable or
probable CAM. At the • trial before Lord Ellenbo-
rough, in the London Sittings after last Trinity Term,
the Jury found I verdiet for the plaintiff, with £7O
damages.
. The AI7OIIIIIY•GZNIRAL now moved, on behalf
detendant, for a Rule to shew cause why the
verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial
granted. He grounded his motion upon a variance
beta een the averment in the declaration and the evi
dente in the cause. It will be recollected that the
plaintiff had been in the service of the defendant, as
steward, at his seat in the county of Essex ; and the
defendant having conceived some erroneous im-
pression in the honesty of his servant, he exhibited
a charge against him before Mr. Gifford, the Magic
trate, of stealing a diamond pin, some silver spoons,
and other valuable articles, which he alleged to have
been taken dot of a writing desk by the plaintiff. Tho
declaration averred " that the defendant had falsely,
maliciously, and without any re isonable or probable.
cause whatever, charged the plaintiff with having
feloniously stolen a large diamond pin, a silver fork,
and a variety of other property of him, the defendant,
in his dwelling house, and that he had falsely, mali-
ciously, and without any probable cause, induced
and canted him, the plaintiff, to be apprehended, to
be dealt with according to law for the said supposed
offence." Now the fl said supposed offence," the
Learned Attorney General observed, was a capital
felony, in having stolen property to the value of 40s.
in the dwelling house; and in order to make out the
averment in the declaration so laid it was necessary
to produce the examination and deposition of thede-
fendant before the Magistrate. But when that docu-
ment was produced it did not appear therefrom that
any such charge had been made by the defendant
before the Justice, for all that the deposition pur-
ported to contain was, the story told by the defendant
of his having been robbed of certain articles men-
tioned, which he had reason to suspect were taken
away by the plaintiff. The Learned Attorney Ge-
neral therefore submitted, that although this was a
mere technical objection, yet it was one by which
the Court would be bound, in adhering to that rule,
which required the averment condescended upon in
the declaration, should be made out by evidence.—
In illustration of this doctrine he referred to a case
of Malkin v. Twigg tried before Mr. Baron Wood,
at the Staff..ird Assizes, where the Learned Judge
had ruled this very point.
Lord ELLICNII3ItOUGH said it did not strike him that

the Objection was so sound as contended for. It was
clear that the defendant had applied for a warrant to
apprehend the plaintiff, and that he made such a state-
ment as caused the Magistrate to suspect him to be
guilty of a felonious offence. Now, oaten the de-
fendant had beard the evidence against the party ac-
cused, he could not take upon himself to swear that
a felony was in fact committed. All that he could
swear was, that he had reason to suspect and believe
that the person accused had robbed him, therefore it
was nut very material, with a view to the present
question, whether it was one charge or another, it it
appeared that he caused the plaintiff to be appre-
hended. (which was the :a mum of the cue) upon
suspicion of felony. Even though the charge had
not been made. in the terms mentioned in the declara-
tion, still the charge was such as the Magistrate,
upon application, would have granted a warrant to
apprehend the plaintiff. • There was, however, no ob-
jsction •to allow the Attorney General a Rule to
thew cause.
The ATTORMST GIININAL said, that the time when.
this action was commenced, and at this moment, his
client•wai confined as a lunatic in a and house, and
therefore there was very little reason to suppose that
the defendant had any malice against the plaintiff.
Lord Euarassoftouciu—lt is merely a question of
strict tram and variance, and therefore does not de-
serve much encouragement in such a case.
Mr. Toren.s, who appeared as .Counsel for the
plaititiff, at the trial, said that dc Jury bad given
very 'considerable* damages;
Laid ELLienoaouoti—l summed up to the Jury
for iffy small damages under the circumstances of,
the case. •
'The ATTORNZY GliNithAL—ln the situation in which
my client was, I was N tied neck and heels," and had
h
othing to do but to ask for mercy.—ltule to shew
eh uric feasted.

Trio lads, of the names of Weto and lifille, were I
last week committed to Winchester gaol, charged
ith a violent assault on a young man of the minus
DtniFORD, in the employ of Lord PALMIKusTna.
appears that, after a &act match lately played
t`fteriiirey, a number of boys, some nearly of the
*Vol manhood, without any provocation, made- a-
' rolent Attack on the yoing man with large sticks,
itf
' nd bristally 64at him; alierwards the, et a dog 'at
im, whisk lacerated his flesh very much. The poor
ifow‘sas so much hurt and Irightened, in cuhse
Uenie of his lite being in imminent 'danger, that he
iii `thereby deprived of his senses, sod was ' subs,.
liehiltobliged to 4e canal:Kiln* an asylum for tuna.
i'll alt (.:IVra Place s. he continues. very ill, hangs
;Rt,##,ltic.4. • utta ials suite.,
tsar ;:, . -

* • k

t,

MIIIMMIN10."6""""""--- -
•

OLD
.IkAILIr MOONS.

Yeslariat& JewsuflOttlietad for stealing a lout-
,.
der of mutton from a 'bomber in Golden lane. The
feet being proved, the-IfrOduirrdeolated in his defence
he, was drives toil, by t distress, and the 'Court
believinghim,,itep*e of one shilling, and
'dered his diseharge.
John Brown was. convicted of picking the pocket
of a perforrustrunin or a silk handkerchief. The
prisoner was seen in the act of snatching the property
by the officer sand when apprehended. Brown said,
" II I had not run, you Would not have found me nut."
The handkerchief was marked "T. B " but the pro-
secutor did not come forward. When taken to
Clerkenwell, the prisoner said, " Thieving is a very
had trade, I' may as well be /aged (transported) as
be here."
John Collins, a weaver, was indicted for stealing.
on the 19th of October, a piece of printed cotton, the
property of Joseph Pearson.. The prosecutor was a
linen-draper in Birch-street. The cotton was expose,'
to sale across a rail at the door, and was from thenct,i
taken by the prisoner.— Guilty.
The COUXION SEILMANT,upon the prosecutor asking
for his expenses, said, that it tradesmen exposed their
goods to the temptation of persons is necessity, no
expenses would be allowed to them.
Benjamin Johnson was convicted of stealing some
wearing apparel, a loaf of bread, and some beef, the
property of .1. Backl.ind, It appeared the prisoner
had been at the bar several times before, and had
spent nearly 20 years of his life in prison.

COITItT *WM MOM 00171,1111E1t rt. •
The-Cowl gritn* lenillt4fifor.fic..;#nlos in di,
folloilit °tees t
Wiest te: STlVinsou, en action or trespass tried
Wore hfra. Anne,. in CumbltriancL
EVANS lilt ": EASa•Allailaplat upon a Bifi of
Exchange, • before Loid Efienborough, at
_ —Troseass. td