Star.
London, England, 1828-02-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BRNCH, Wartsuanvita, pat. is.
Aliddiesez Sittings, at Nisi Pries. before Lord Tauvaasau and
Common Juries.
lINRLAND V. FARIBROTDRIR !SQ. AND OTNERS.
This was an action against gise late Sheriffs of Mid-
dlesex, and two of their Officers, to recover compeasa•
tion for alleged false imprisonment.
It appeared that the plaintiff, a Gentleman residing
at Brighton, being arrested for debt at the suit of a cre-
ditor, tendered as his bail two persons of the name of
Morley and Frost; the one being a tailor in the Strand,
and the other a jeweller in the vicinity of Soho-square ;
and both being fully competent to enter into the neces-
sary bond. The officers, however, refused to accept
them, until inquiries had been made as to their responsi-
bility. A delay of several days took place in come.
quence, during which time the plaintiff was detained in
custody. The bail were ultimately accepted ; and the
plaintiff, conceiving that the objections to them in the
first instants had been made vexatiously, and that be
had been unnecessarily detained in prison, brought the
present accloi against the Sheriffs and their Officers.
On the part of the defendants, it was contended that
no unnecessary delay had taken place in making the
inquiries as to the bail ; and two witnesses (Sheriffs'
officers) were called to prove that the result of the in-
quiries in the first instance was not satisfactory. One
of them stated that the referee of one of the bail ex-
pressed his doubts as to his sufficiency.
Lord TENTERDEN left it to the jury to say, whether
the officers had exercised only reasonable and proper
caution in making inquiries into the responsibility of
the bail, or whether they had been actuated by impro-
per motives, and had vexatiously detained the plaintiff
in custody. If they were of opinion that the officers
had acted boxafule, and had not unnecessarily delayed
the plaintiff in regaining his liberty, their verdict must
be for the defendants; otherwise, they would find for
the plaintiff, with such damages as they thought the
case called for. The defendants were bound to take
care that both the persons tendered as bail were good
and sufficient, otherwise they were liable to an action at
the suit of the party in whose behalf the arrest was
made. The only question therefore was, whether the,
officers had acted hone fide, and without any intention
of harassing the plaintiff?
The Jury immediately found for the defends ntrt.
STEWART V. EDMONDS.

This was an action of trover, to recover the value of
certain articles of silver plate.
The plaintiff, Capt. Stewart, was the administrator of
the late Major Wood, who was indebted to the de-
fendanr, a respectable silversmith, in a sum of 5004
In February, 1826, she in question (which was of
the value of about 250 L) was deposited with the de-1
fendant by the Major, who died shortly after, without
leaving assets sufficient for the payment of his debts.-1
The defendant, claiming to be entitled to retain the plate
in part satisfaction of his demand on Major Wood's
estate, refused to give it up to the plaintiff, his adminis-
trator, who, in consequence, brought the present action
to recover its value.

The defendant's shopman deposed to a conversation
between the plaintiff and tits/ defendant, subsequent to
the death of Major Wood, from which it appeared that
the former had consented to the defendant's retaining
the plate, in part satisfaction of the debt. There how-
ever appeared to be some doubt whether this consent
had been given pi for or subsequent to-the time of the
plaintiff's taking out letters of administration to Major
Wood's effects. There was no proof that the plate had
been originally deposited by the Major as a security for
the debt.

Lotd TENTERDIN said it was quite clear that the de-
fendant wac not entitled to retain the plate, unless the
plaintiff, after he had invested himself with the character
of administrator, had consented to his so doing ; that,
tberefote, was the only question for the Jury to comider.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, Fzi. 16.

Sittings after Hilary Term before Mr. Justice Pram and Common
Juries.
EDWARbS V. COOPER.

This was an action by an attorney, to recover the
'sum of 1001.165. the amount of his bill of costs for
professional services. The defendant, who is a coach-
builder, some time since entered into a contract with a
Lady of fashion, residing in this town, Lady Ramsay,
to build a landau. The landau was built, but some
dispute arising about the payment, it was agreed that.
the matter should be referred to the decision of a Gets.
thermals of the Bar, the Hon. Mr. Liw, who made an
award,which was, however, subsequently set aside by the
Court of King's Bench. The plaintiff was the attorney
who was employed by the defendant to conduct this
reference, and it was for his services performed on that
occasion that the present demand was made.
The employment of the plaintiff, and delivery of the
bill within the time prescribed by the Act of Parlia-
ment, was admitted, and the rule made by the Court
of King's Bench, directing that the award should be set
aside, was put in and read. The ground upon which
the Court set it aside was, that Lady Ramsay's attornies
had hot received sufficient authority from her, she being
a married woman.

The defence was, that owing to the plaintiff's negli-
gence the defendant had received no fruits from the
award which had been decided in his favour, and it
was therefore contended that he could not now come
into Court to claim a compensation for that which he
had neglected to do, or which bis inadvertence had
been the means of causing the defendant to lose, In
support of this argument several cases were cited, in
which it had been held that where negligence was
proved, an attorney could nut recover.
The Jury, however, having been informed by the
Learned Judge that he did net see the slightest ground
or pretence upon which the claim could be resisted,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1004