Star.
London, England, 1828-05-24 00:00:00

?Ili TING V. JILT.

This was an indictment charging the defendant with
the- unlawful conversion to his own use of a bill of
exchange which had been.entfusted to him for the pur-
pose of getting discounted. .
It appeared by the statement of Mr. GUatvay, for
the prosecution. that the defendant haying,- some time
in the course of the last year, opened a correspondence
with the prosecutor, Hutchins, on the subject of dis-
enunting souse bids, the latter. in Septernbet:last, put'
into his bands a bill of exchange for 1001. for the pur-
pose of his getting it discounted. The defendant paid
the prosecutor 101. in part of the bill, but having made
nosatisfactory excuses for not paying the remainder, the
prosecutor caused him to be apprehended, and taken
before a Magistrate at Bow-street, when it was dis-
covered that he was a prisouer in the King's Bench,
having the rules from the Marshal. ' . I
Lord TENTIRDss, upon hearing Mr. Gurney's state-
Menu requested to see the memoraogurn given by the
defendant on receiving the bill; and having perused it,
his Lordship observed that.the indictment could not be
supported. It was, pet haps, more prudent for him to
sit to generally than to particularize why ; but it was
matter of astonishment to his Lordship that persons
living in this metropolis should be induced by advertise-
ment or letters of this kind to intrust bills for discountiog.
A* verdict of /Yot Guilty was then recorded. •
SPENCER V. JACpES.
This was an action for damages, for a false arrest and
imprisonment. •
.Mr. ADOLPHUS, for the plaintiff, stated that a bill -of
a:change- for 1001. hod been presented to the plaintiff.
at his house, No. 3, Stdmouth-street, -Gray's Inn-lane,
which purported to bear his acceptance. The plaintiff
bald that it was not his acceptanze, although it might
be that- of a son of his, who bore the same name.
be two days after, the plaintiff, an old Gentleman -of
so; was arrested on the bill by Laurence Levi, a Sheriff',
Officer. This was between nine and ten in the morn-.
ins, and he observed to the Officer that he was then-
ire very ill health, and could not accompany the Office;
to fthe' LOck-up•hothe ; and bregSed that he might'
have time to send for his attorney, Mr. Turner.—
Levi then telt him is the custody of oncot his fillowers,
in* which he remained till siz o'clock in the evening,
when Mr. Turner came and put in bail for him. The
cftsfentiant, however, had diScovered his mistake, and was
Odious to drop the matter; and a hope was expressed
that. the plaintiff would Pot think it necessary to bring
a)sy' action. The plaintiff said that he had no desite
to bring an action if his attorney thought it proper
that he should not. Mr. Turner then said, that it
they would pay the full costs to v• Welt the plain-
tiff 'had been put in providing bail; which - was otily
et.' above what the Master would allow on taxatiop,
tfititite would not advise the plaintiff to bring an action._
This 51 however, they refused to pay, but they did
sniisk p er to pay Mr. Turner his demand of V. .ss.
as it, pretty well known that in case of an
action r. Turner would be put in the jory-boa.
-It might be said that there was no malice•here,
and that it was merely a mistake; but they (night
td have made the proper inquiries before they ventured.
to-arrest chili. old Gentleman, and he trusted 'the' Jury
would make them pay a great-deal more than the Si
*frith they bad refused to pay for costs.
'Mr. Spencer wasscalled and proved the arrest. and
said that no incivility had been used to the old Gentle-
snan.-0-Mri Turner, the Attorney, proved the other facts
as stated by the Learned Counsel.
Mr. CAMPBELL submitted, that there was nothing to
go to the Jury. There was no malice whatever in the
cuy and then there was probable cause, as the bill
bore Oprorthe face of it to be accepted by he plaintiff.
Ir. Anourrva said, that there was no other probable
cook except that the bill purported to be accepted by
a palm of sba Dame of Spenese•
Lord Umtata:al observed, that there was no apt
pewees* say stalks in the case; and the bill per.
potted to be accepted by the plaintiff, and was made
mai& at his relideueettliere did appear to be probable

cause, and therefore the plaintiff must be smoked.—
Pi4is.till Aion.uited.
TRESPASS—opus V. BROWNE. 01°.
This was an action to recover damages for an illegal
trespass and distress for rent. The plaintiff had rented
the premises from the defendant, and owed bins about
51.61. for rent when the distress was put in; Eiut Browne
had before that time assigned his insenesi .to another,
and theiefere could not legally distrain.--Verdiet for
the plaintiff. Dunages,.Twenty Pound,.
LEWIS 17. HUGHES AND ANOTIJER.
This was an action for forcibly entering the hnuse
the plaintiff and assaulting him. It appeared that the
defendants had become bail for the plaintiff in an action
which he had removed into the*Court of King's Bench
from the Marshalsea Court. The bail was for 221 and as
security to the defendants, goods of the value of 501. were
placed in their hands. On the evening of the day after
they had become bail, the defendants, with several other
persons, went to the plaintiff's house fur the purpose
of requiring the plaintiff to surrender. Ile refuie.d
their admittance, and then they besieged his, house
before and behind, and at length made their way into
the house, arrested the plaintiff, and surrendered him
in the action. The defendants pleaded a justification;
and, they having a right• by law to make the surrender,
the only question for the Jury was, whether they had
broken open the outer door of the plaintiff's house, or
whither it was, as they alleged, open it the time they
went to the house ? The evidence on this pt.int WAS con;
tradictory ; but it appeared that the defendants and
'their p irty had used a great deal of violence, which was
met by determined resistance on the part of the plaintiff,
who at the time he was taken had made his way. out el
the house, and got to the roof of the adjoining one.
The Jury found for the' plaintiff—Damages, Is.