Star.
London, England, 1828-12-05 00:00:00

L18E1......81L0WN V. BUDD AND wILLIr

This action was brought by Samuel Brown, a chip
and straw bonnet manufacturer in Old-stee., St. Luke's,
against Budd, who also carries on the stew. business
in the same neighbourhood, and Mr. Willis, an attorney,
to recover damages fur a libel published in the form of
a liand•bill. The plaintiff, it appeased, had extensive
deilings, and at the end of last year, a failure having
tak-n place in the sale of the articles in which he dealt,
he became embarrassed, and Budd sued out a commis-
lsion of bank' uptcy against him. Budd was then made
assignse, and Mr. Willis the art uney under the commis.
sion. Acting in those situations, they cw)sideted it
their duty to publish ha..d-bills, cffering a reward of
201. to any person who might discover ant convict in-
dividuals supected rf having fraudulently obtained tie
bankrupt's property. The hand-bills were circisl.ted
in the east end f the metropolis, and posted near the
residence of the plaintiff. The hand bill was described
to be a serious and unjust i& able attack on the plaintiff's
character, and it was contended Oil the Jury in such a
CASA ought to give ample damages.
Su JAMBS SCARLLTT put in the hand-bill, signed by
Willis,Whlth was read in eviJence, and called witnesses
in support of the case.
Mr. Comm N SZI.OOANT, for the defendants, said his
Learned Friend had not proved the publication to be a
übel. The hand-bill had been published from the best
motive, namely, to recover goods for the uenefit of the
creditor s.

Lord TENTIIRDEN said there must be a verdict for
the plaintiff; but as Mr. Willis was acting in a profes-
bional character for ttie interest of the creditors under
the assignees, the verdict might be alpinist Budd alone.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, As against
Budd. D.rniges, 501.1

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, W/ITMUISTIN D. 4.
LIPSCOMB V OBAMASI.
- This was an action brought by the plaintiff,furmerly
a labourer in the delendat.t's service, to recover com-
pensation in damages f,r an .riest and false imprison.
mei t, on suspicion of having stolen lead and other arti-
cles from the defend4nt.

Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS statel the Me. from which
it appeared that the defendant was a Ger.tleman of pro-
perty, residing at Cranford. near Hounslow, and having
been robbed of lead, his suspicion fell upon the plain-
tiff, he ning he had spoken to a man, Cheeseman, who
ahsconded on the morning cf the robbery, and on that
suspicion he gave the plainiff in charge to an officer
named Vincent, representing lie suspected the plaintiff
belonged to the Fushun gang; the offer of course
thought he was a desperate cliaraittr, and to make his
prisoner secure handcuffed him ; but after he had de-
tained him at the public-house three hours he discharged
him, because the defendant would not pm sue the inquit y
against the plaintiff It he proved these facts the plain-
tiff would be entitled t a verdict.
Evidence was then called to prove the arrest and
subs-quent disch age of the plaintiff. •
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, for the defence, said she plain-
tiff must necessarily obtain a verdict, because the de-
fendant had not put a jurtifization on the record ; but
still the damages ought to be very small, the defendant
having mistaken the law on the subject, and having
been misled by the offictr employed to discover the
offenders. Yet there was a circumstance that would
decrease the damages ; u hen the officer was putting on
the handcuffs, the defendant said these was no occasion,
and the officer said he should do as he pleased.
Witnesses were called fir the defendant, but the
CUM/ Jvsrice overruled their evidence as to the de-
fence that the defendant bad reasonable grounds of sus-
picion.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS, in reply, observed it was a
circumstance very much in aggravation, that the de-
fendant had represented the plaintiff belonged to the
Fulham gang.
The CHIEF Justice said he had not permitted the
defendant is give evidence in justification, because
there was not a plea to that effect ; but he was sure the
defendant had not acted under vindictive or malicious
feeling; nevertheless, be represented that the plaintiff
belonged to a gang of desperate characters, and that
justified the conduct of the officer in handcuffing his
prisoner, he being responsible for his appearance. It
the Jury thought thi:defendant had acted maliciously,
I .r,te damages ought to be given ; but if under mis-
taken motives only, moderate damages would corn.
[mate.
The Jury, after deliberating for ten minutes, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 201.