Star.
London, England, 1826-06-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL, JUIDE 27.
SMITH V. DICKENS.
The plaintiff, a piano forte manufacturer, residing it
Charles-street, Middlesex Hospital, brought this action
against the defendant, an attorney, to mover a cont•
pensation in.damages for having caused Mr. Smith to
be arrested and held to bail, without any reasonable
cause, for an alleged debt of 411. 10s•
The pleadings were opened by Mr. Jowls, after which
Mr. SCARLET? stated the case to the Jury, and called
witnesses, from whose testimony it appeared that the
plaiatiff had entered into partnership with a m.m name I
Jaw* uhrs was a Sheriff's-officer for Surrey. Being
dissatisfied with the accounts of business furn6lted 1)
Jervis, the plaintiff filed a bill in equity against him,
and Dickens, the present defendant, was the attorney of
Jervis in that suit. During the proceeding in Chancery,
a Mr. Robertson, a friend of the plaintiff, had several
communications with the parties, and expressed his wil-
lingness to take an assignment of the debts due to the
firm of Smith and Jervis, thinking such an arrangement
likely to tep-minate all litigation between them. This he
communicated to Mr. Dickens, Jervis's attorney, who
refused to accede to the propaition unless Mr. Smith
paid him the costs of defending Jervis in the Chancery
suit. These were costs due from Jervis only, and not
from the firm of Smith and Jervis, who were adverse
parties in that suit. At the time Mr. Robertson was
deliberating whether he should take an assignment of
the debts due to the firm of Smith and Jervis, it became
necessary to ascertain if them were any debts due from
them to other persons, and the present defendant, Mr.
Dickens, several times asserted that there were none.
On Mr. Robertson inquiring the grnount of the costs in-
curred by Jervis in the equity suit, 'Dickens expressed
his opinion that they would not be more than 251. or
SOL It was arranged that they should be paid. Mr.
Robertson discovered, when the draft of assignment or
the debt was prepared, that Jervis was about to commit
on act of bankruptcy, which would render the assign-
ment of no avail, and consequently he declined being a
patty to it. On learning this, Dickens, for the first time,
set up a claim of 411.105. as due to him for business
done for the firm of Smith and Jervis, although he had
previously denied there were any debts due from them
jointly. He wrote a letter to the present plaintiff, dated
the 15th Selstember, enclosing a bill, and threatening to
arrest Mr.- Smith ualcss •it was discharged in a week.
Mr. Smith placed.tbis letter in the hands of his solici-
tors, Messrs. Fisher and 'sons who appliied the defend-
ant, if he intended to execute his threat, they would put
in an appearance if it was sent to them. Mr. Robertson,
about this time, met Mr. Dickens in the street : the latter
expressed his determination r, to serve the plaintiff out,"
and did sue out a writ against him, by virtue of which
he was arrested, although Jervis, who was joined in the
suit, was only served with a common process. The
(plaintiff was two hours in custody, and having found
bail was liberated, and defended the action ; when the
ease was referred to the Master of the Court of King's
Bench, who reported that the defendant had no claim
on the firm of Smith and Jervis. The present action
was brought to recover compensation for the injury
which the plaintiff had sustained by this arrest.
The COMMON SIRJEANT, for the defendant, main-
tained, that unless there was a to.al absence of all pro-
bable cause, malice could not with propriety be inferred.
It was incumbent on the plaintiff to establish affirma-
tively that there was no probab!e cause, and this the
Learned Gentleman contended he had not done, for
though the defendant might have acted under a mis-
taken notion, yet if he really believed there was good
ground of action, the plaintiff could not recover. At
all events, supposing malice to be established, the plain-
tiff had sustained no material injury, as the time of his
being in custody was very short.
The Lotto Caine Juorscz, in summing up the evidence, left It to
the Jury to deeide whether, from the defendant's declaration, he
must not be thought to have acted from motives of malice ?
After deliberating shortly, the Jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, 'fa

PORTER V. HORNE.
The plaintiff brought this action against the defend-
ant, an extensive coach proprietor, to recover compen-
sation for a breach of contract under the following cir-
cumstances :—The plaintiff, being at Liverpool, con-
tracted with an agent in the coach-office for a passage
to London for himself and daughter. It was stipulated'
that the latter should travel inside during the night, and
the plaintiff himself, provided there should be room.
On arriving at Newcastle under-Lyme the guard re-
fused to permit the plaintiff's daughter or himself to en-
ter the coach, although there was ample room. The
plaintiff referred him to the way-bill, and also to the
written agreement, which he produced. The result
was, that the plaintiff and his daughter, wbo was in a
delicate state of health, were compelled to make their
way to London •n foot. This was the plaintiffs case in
substance, as stated by Mr. Guaramr, and subsequently
established by the evidence of Macallister, a man em-
ployed by the defendant, who made the contract on
the part of his master, the plaintiff's daughter, and
other witnesses.
Mr. &muse, briefly addressed the Jury for the defence, but
called no witnesses.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Daniages,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 27.
BURFORD V. HARVEY.
Mr. Coftwooo opened the pleadings, and stated that this was an
anion for Wander.
Mr. Serjeant WILD 6 stated the case t• the Jury
They bad heard from his Learned friend what the nature
of this action was. The plaintiff was an Attorney, and
the defendant a Captain in the army, who had uttered
certain slanderous expressions against his client, tending
to affect his professional character, to such a degree as,
would, be hoped, entitle him to serious damages at their
hands. Their verdict must, of course, depend upon the
nature and extent of the slanderous words; what these
were he should leave them to gather from his evidence,
and left the amount of damages with confidence in their