Star.
London, England, 1820-04-14 00:00:00

'plated, they would best consult the interests of sos
ciety, by returning a verdiq for the defendants.
The Jury then retired, and, after being absent
-about half an hour, returned, and delivered, throuos
their Foreman, a verdict for the plaintiffs, by which
they found, in the first place, that the premises had
been correctly and sufficiently described ; in the second,
that the fire did not originate in the place where the.
nevi process was carried on ;_ and, in the third, that
nn increased risk was caused by the introductioa of
that process.—Damages £7200.
The announcement of the verdict was received by
a crowded Court, with considerable approbation, aid
notwitirstandh.g the interposition of the highly re-
spected Judge, it was some time before order was
perfectly restored.

SECONDARIES' OFFICE, COLEMAN-STEET.T.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.-.GARI)AIN V. PEA ED.

The circumstances of this case, which were pn.ved
in evidence, were these appeared that the de-
fendant, who is a Solicitor in Doctors' Comrno:-.,
was passing down Cheapside on the V.Sth of Novem-
ber last, when the plaintiff, who was in cemp..2r
with several others, jostled against him as Ile
passing, The defendant soon after put his hand
his pocket and missed his pocket-book, which cm:-
mined Valuable property. lie immediately susTectel
the plaintiff. who had jostled against him, to h.t..,e
taken it, and he followed him until he came near the
Bank, when he obtained the assistance of an ()Seer,
named . Wiltshire, from the Minsk's-house,
found the plaintiff standing still in the street. Upon
'being taken in charge, his companions left him and
went about .their business, and he was. taken to tlic
•locksup room and searcherk but nothing which couM
give suspicion was found upon his person. The:c
was no Magistrate sitting at the time At the Mansion-
house, and the plaintiff, at the request of the de-
fendant, was taken to the Giltspur-street Comp ter, in
order to give time for a further investigation of the
affair, and that he might be examined by the 'Magis-
trate. On going home, 'at about four o'clock in the
afternoon, to his country residence at Fulham, the
defendant found the pocket-book, which he had sup-
' posed to have been stolen by the plaintiff, on his
dressing-table, having, as it appeared, forgotten to
put it in his pocket. He imrnediately sent to the
Giltspur-street Compter, where the plaintiff was all-
ptisoned, and requested that he might be set at li-
berty ; when he was informed that this could not be
done, but that he must first be taken before a Magi.,
trate, who alone could set him at liberty. The plain-
tiff was accordingly kept in custody until the ni:Lici:e
of the next day, when he was taken before the Lord
Mayor, by whom he was discharged.
Mr. Anot.putia, for the plaintiff, contended, that
! the Jury should mark their sense of so scandalous a
breach of the liberty of the subject, by inflicting sateil
damages as would deter others from :rifling with the
liberty or reputation of au individual.
Mr. BOLLAND, on the part of the defendant, Con-
tended, that as the defendant could not possibly
have been actuated by any malicious motives towartk
the plaintiff, that heavy damages ought not to be in-
flicted. The defendant was an old man of regular
habits, who for Tears had been accustomed to put
his pocket-book in the same pocket, and it was per-
fectly natural for him, under spch circumstances, to
do as he had done.

The SgCO)IDARY summed op the evidence, and the
Jury, after consulting for a short time, found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages £7o.—The plaintiff
is quite a young man, and a journeyman bricklayer.