Star.
London, England, 1828-11-18 00:00:00

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.••••WIUTBROIKE V. RUTHVEN.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, wbo resides
in the Edgware•road, against the defendant. a well
known police officer, for false imptisonment.
It appeared that information had been sent ►o Bow-
street rf a robbety committed on the Post office at
Hounslow, to a large amour t. Suspicion had fallen
on some persons, and among others Dowson and Smith.
Some of the officers had taken up Smith, and two
officers were stationed at Smith's stables, in Bur wood-
mews, Edgware-road, for the purpose of apprehending
hi- accomplices. In the stables they fund one hun.
died and fifty pick-lock keys, with every implement of
housebreaking. The plaintiff had nothing to do with
tt e patties, except being landlord of the premises.—
Whilst the officers, Morris and another, were in the
stable, the plaintiff came, and one of them went cut
and secured him, supposing he was Dowson, whom he
very much resembled. He was taken into the stable
and detained until ltuthven was sent fur. On the arrival
of the latter the plaintiff was taken to his own house,
and there the officers found a large bundle of pawn-
broker's duplicates, which Smith's wife had sent there
a day or tali previous. R.'thven then put handcuffs on
the plaintiff, and took him in a chaise to Bow. stre.
where he told Mr. Halls, the Magistrate, that he had
no evidence, and the plaintiff was discharged. These
were the farts, and it was contended-by Mr. Archbold,
who was Counsel for the plaintiff, that the Jury ought
to give large damages.
After evidence had been heard in support of the case,
Mr. GURNEY said it would be for his Lordship to say
whether the facts respecting the robbery cf the Post
Office would amount to a justification? 11 not, he wa.
Ire the Jury would decide there was no ground for
damages.
Lord TENTERDSN—ShouId yon not have justified?
Mr. Gunney said the defendant was an officer of
police, and must plead the general issue.
Lord TENTIRDEN.-11 think you will hardly make out
a justification; mitigation is another thing.
Mr. GURNEY then proved his case by witnesses.
Lord TENTERDeII, in summing up the case to the
Jury, said the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. If
Ituthven had been muse cautious he might have Made
further inquiry ; it would then have appealed that
Westbrooke was not the man. A great deal bad been
said by way of inflaming the passions of the Jury against
police-officers, but that cla►s of persons were entitled to
the measure of justice dealt out to ethers. They cer-
tainly ought to be cautious before they made any per-
son suffer disgrace. In this case the defendant appeared
to think he acted h :nest); in doing what he considered
his duty. The Jury eught to take care they did not
give damages. which might seem the result of vin-
dictive feeling.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
One Shilling,
COUNT OF COMMON PI.RAS WILITIONIMIR, Nov. 17.

(Sittings in &nee)
Mr. Sergeant Cause applied to the Court to direct
an attorney to answer charges made in an affidavit.
The affidavit stated' the amount of the bill of costs,
miginally, amounted to upwards of 5001. and bad been
reduced on tazatiern to 4(121. The affidavit farther
,s.ared, that he had sworn he paid one witne-s VW. and,
on tali tiuri, 211. was allowed: On inquiry it was dit-
cilvtird be had only paid 101. Fur *anther witness he
had charged and only given the witness 51
stating it he could obtain mote the witness should re-
ceive it; un taxation he had been allowed 281. There
were two other items in the bill of writs, amounting to
121/. the affidavit said the deponent had not b.en able
to obtain eaict infotenatiots conceroing these sums, but
deponent verily believed the witnesses had not received
that sum. Sev.eral other stints of smaller amount ap-
(eared by the bill to have been paid to witnesses, bu'
on inquiry the witnesses deposed they had nut received
dress,

The Comte immediately maned the attorney to
show cause why he should not be straek off the roll.
'mamas at.b MONTAGU v. PRINCII.

Thia cause citric cua t.i be tried at Guildhall. before
Wt. Je,tice Yiu, at the Sittings lifter Tiiaity Term,
ism Hi, Lnrds'ip thought it a proper cause tot re
ferelice. mad accordingly directed al matters in dispute
to he lehired to some Gentleman at the bar.

Mr. Srrgeant %Lug, on a former day, LbtaiiieJ a
rule to cause why the plaintiffs should not pay the
costs, on the gfosinds of a vexatious anent.
Mr. Sergeant' TADDY Goa, showed cause against the
rule, and s4iJ this action had been brought to recover
upwards of 1001. for or namen•al work done at ti.e de-
fendant's house in the Regent's Park. The Judge,

befOre whom this case vane on to be triei;'irefifttiqt,
for arbitration; the parties atfetleed Were the' ettsi.l
tram., ands great deal of distustiois °mute; the de:.
fendatitthen put in new claims,. which were alloWed,
and • !rich reduced the plaititilfo debt to 994 10s. The
plaintiff, have distinctly sworn thee- new claims alone
reduced the account.
Mr. Sergeant Wilma; for the defending, said the'
plaintiffs arrested the defendant for 100 i. when, in fact,
less than 401. was doe. The plaintiff's Nadcharged for
extra work, and had not allowed forth, work they'had'
not performed; according to the agreement.
The CHM Jounce thought this too compticeed
case for the Court to interfere; and concluded* by say.
ing it required a very strong case to fix a plaintiff with
costs for a vexatious arrest.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nev. 17.
• William Taylor, a horse denier, was opposed on
lath& of Mr. Kirkham, the proprietor of Kirkham's
Hotel, Lower Brook strut, Grosvenor square.
hlr. Kit khan's stated, that in the early pair of last
year he had a French Nobleman residing in his home,
who had bought some holies he wished to send to
Berlin ; and on his applying to him, witness recom-
mended the insolvent as a fit person to go toHambnrgh
to ship them to B!rlin; which he did, and on his re•
turn he called on witness, and stared that a banker at
Ibmburgh had employed him as agent to buy a mare,
and asked witness if he would sell his grey. mare to the
banker ? and witness having no objection, the insolvent
took her away, on the understanding that the money
should arrive from Hamburg,' to witness in about 14.
days; but witness never again saw his mare nor the
5.54 he was to receive for her. He bad not sold bet to
tl,e insolvent.

William Booth stated that be had ascertained from
the Captain of the Ilamborgh yes:el that a grey mare
had been shipped to that port. but in thecontse of three
weeks had been teiusned to thr insolvent.

The insolvent, in the course of his examination. stated
that after the mare's return he sold it for 281. but de.
Glared, in the snest positive manner, that the mare had
been sold by Ms. Kirkham to him.
The insolvent having taken the benefit of the Act
within five yeas., and the case being one in which fraud
had been practised, he was remanded until he obtained
the consent r•f thrre•fourths of his creditors to his dis-
charge.
Cherries Abrahams Rickaky. who formerly resided in
Denzell-street, Clare-market, and aftetwards in Fetter-
lane, was opposed by Mr Stathon, tailor, of Long Acres
by Mr. Jenkinsun, of Barnard's Inn, by Messrs. Hoppe,
coal merchants, and others. The insolvent had repre-
sented 'Arne fto Mr. Stathon as a man of considerable
propery, and•offered to discount bills for him to any
amount. He also stated that he carried on the business
of a coal met chant, and rtevarlesi upon Mr. Stathon to
give him an order for coals. Mr.Stathon, at the same
time, supplied him with clothes to the amount of 371.
Od one occasi .n, he said that he iotended to advance a
friend the sum of 5001 and as be did not wish to have
less than 3501. at his banker's, he prevailed upod Mr.
Stathon to give him his bill tn. 501. and he in return
gave his own bill to Mr. Station. Tne insolvent im-
mediately cashed Mr. Stathon's bill, and when it became
due he was compelled to pay it, but the insolvent's bill
was dishonoured. Mr. Jenkinson proved that he lent
the insolvent 2004 as he said he wished to open an ac-
count with Messrs. Cox and Bidciulph, but they would
not receive lis than 4001. The insolvent gave him a
cheque for the amount, but when presented it was dis-
, covered that there were no effects.

. The COURT sentenced t!ie insolvent to eight months'
imprisonment.