Star.
London, England, 1829-09-04 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.

These Sessions commenced yesterday morning before
FRANCIS CONST, Esq. and a full Bench of magistrates.
William Stewart was indicte4 for stealing a silver
snuff-box, the property of Mr. John Gough.
The prosecutor stated that on'the evening of the 13th
of August he was passing through Drury-lane, when he
felt a tug at his coat pocket, and immediately missed his
snuff-box; the prisoner was close behind him at the time.
He seized him by the collar, and forced him into a shop,
where, on searching him, he found the box in his waist-
coat pocket.—Verdict, Guilty. Transported for 7 years.

SHERIFFS' COURT, RID LION SWUM, Sim 5.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
HARDING V. ALLEN AND OTHERS.
Mr. CHARLES PHILLIPS opened the pleadings, and
addressed the Jury on the part of the plaintiff. He stated,
that his client was a butcher, residing near the Regent's
Park, and carried on a respectable business, by which he
derived a profit of about 51. a week. Two of the de-
fendants, Messrs. Allen and Anthony, were, he would in
justice to them state, respectable solicitors, residing in
the city of London ; the other defendant was a sheriff's
officer. The circumstances that gave rise to the pre-
sent action were as follow :—On the •twenty-ninth of
April the plaintiff was sitting at home with his family,
when the defendant Sloman, and another officer, called,
and producing a warrant, arrested him for a debt of
eighty pounds alleged to be due to a Mr. Norris, an
attorney at Manchester, for his bill of costs under a cer-
tain commission of bankruptcy ; in vain the plaintiff
declared that he knew nothing of Norris, and that he
could not be the person named. in the warrant ; in vain
he called his landlord and his son-in-law, who confirmed
his statement ; the officers would not listen to him, but
dragged him off at once to Whitecross-street prison,where
he was kept six weeks and two days before he obtained
his liberation. After being immured in that prison about
ten days, he sent to his solicitor, who drew up an affidavit
in which the plaintiff distinctly and positively swore that
he was not the person named in the warrant, in order to
ground an application to the Court of King's Bench for
his discharge. Previous to the application being made,
the affidavit was shown to the defendants, Allen and An-
thony, who said they should oppose the application. When
the motion was made, they requested a week's time
to write to their client in Manchester on the subject,
and which the Court granted. At the expiration of that -
period the parties went before Mr. Justice Littledale,
when, instead of producing affidavits in answer to that
of the plaintiff, the defendants took technical objection
that the affidavit was wrongly entitled, describing the
name of one of the defendants as Rymer, instead of
Ryner—using an re instead of an n—the Judge decided
this objection to be fatal to the proceedings, and the plain-
tiff's attorney had to commence de noro, by which delay
the plaintiff was kept in custody an additional week, and
the day after the second summons was taken out, the
defendants sent the plaintiff's discharge to the pri-
son, without offering him the slightest remunera-
tion for the injury he had sustained by such a
lengthened imprisonment. He anticipated the de-
fence set up would be that Messrs. Allen and An-
thony had only acted upon the instructions of their
agent Norris ; but surely before they did so they
ought to have made proper inquiry, and ascertained that
the plaintiff was the person against whom the writ was
directed ; in addition to this, after the plaintiff's affidavit
had been shown to them, why did they oppose the appli-
cation for his discharge, and raise the paltry objection he
had alluded to? His client had not only suffered in
person by the imprisonment, but had lost all his business,
in consequence of being unable to attend to it himself.
His family, too, during his confinement, were indebted
to a relative for even the means of subsistence. He would
ask the Jury what compensation they themselves would
expect for such treatment ? He thought it a case that
called for Ample damages. He then called
Mr. Barrett, the Governor of Whitecross-street Prison,
who stated that the plaintiff was brought there on the
29th of April, and discharged on the 12th of June.
Cross-examined by Mr. Adolphus.—The defendants
sent his discharge. There was no other detainer against
him.
Mr. Peter Greaves stated, that he was the plaintiff's .
son-in-law. He was present when Sloman and another
officer came to arrest him. Sloman said it was for an
attorney's bill, amounting to 801. Plaintiff denied the
debt, and said he did not know the attorney. Witness
said if he (plaintiff) really owed the money, he would be-
come bail for him, but if not, he would leave the officers
to proceed at their peril. Sloman tried to persuade wit-
ness to be bail for plaintiff, but he refused, and plaintiff
was then taken away. The plaintiff was a butcher, and
had a wife and three children, who were dependant upon
him for support. Witness assisted the family while
plaintiff was in prison. His business fell off in conse-
quence of his absence from it ; nearly all his customers
had left him ; his profits were about 51. a-week.
Mr. Tucker, the plaintiff's solicitor, stated that he was
sent for by him on the 12th May, and after hearing his
statement, he drew up the necessary papers and affidavits
to ground an application to the Court of King's Bench
for his discharge ; he showed the plaintiff's affidavit to
Messrs. Allen and Anthony, and told them of the in-
tended application. Mr. Anthony, after reading it, said
he could contradict it, and that it was incorrect in many
particulars. The Court of' King's Bench granted a rule
Nisi, to show cause why the plaintiff should not be dis-
charged; and the defendants, when they showed cause
against the rule, instead of producing any affidavits in
answer to that of the plaintiff, took a technical objection
to the manner in which the affidavit was entitled, and
which was allowed by the Judge. The defendants, on
the objection being allowed, applied to the Judge for their
costs, but the application was refused.
Cross-examined—Plaintiff did not send for him until
he had been in confinement about 12 days, and the ap-
plication of the Court of King's Bench was not made
until the last day but one of Easter Term.
Mr. Heaviside, Mr. Hornblower, and several other
customers of the plaintiff, were then examined, who
proved that in consequence of his confinement in prison,
and there being no one to attend to his business, they had
discontinued dealing with him, and that his business had
been altogether destroyed. This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. ADOLPHUS then rose and addressed the Jury for
the defendants. He contended that his clients had acted
merely as the agents of another person, residing at a dis
tance, and who alone was to blame for all that had hap-
pened. His clients were not actuated by any malicious
motives in what they did. He would admit that they
had acted.wrong, and that the plaintiff was entitled to
some compensation for the injury he had sustained ; but
he thought that very small damages would satisfy the
justice of' the case.
The UNDER SIIERirr summed up, and the Jury,
after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the

plaintiff—Damages 1501. The drrmage4 were laid at 500/.
-
Saturday morning; a porter, while employed in putting
coals on board a Steam Boat at the Broomielaw, fell from the plank
into the river and was drowned.