The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-12-25
The French hallway Case.
SUPREME COURT SPECIAL TERM.
nac.-o H. IuAno IA sxios

DEC. 24-7he Nonht,n ha,luay Company Of Fdnce u.
Carpenter and Others The attention Of the Court having
called to the condition upon which the or Ter to dis
charge the defendants Eugene Grelet and Feicte De-
bud was granted It hM looked again into the practice
in similar The rule governing the Courts In Eng
land is tho laid down in Arch Pr. by Gritty, 1903.
Generally speaking IL the application 10 discharge from
arres) successful the Judge either orders the ply
ment OF the by the plaintiff, and restraints the lie.
ferdant from bringing any action on account OF the ar
rests upon imp oper II dsvt else leaves the de-
PENDANT 10 bring action without making amp order A
to The practice in the Courts Of this ate s quite
universal to impose spch stipulation when It appears
that tho aTrest made without malice and upon proba-
BILE No malice Is alleged In this case, and that
there probable cause is manifest from tho fact that
II made by the acton or Judge OF this Court upon
it The care q he Bank Of The United States We.
Jenkins Q8 John.on's Rep, p 1861 cited BY
deendants counsel susta,ns this practice. In
that the torbey for the plaintiff issued .
sgape the def Daant caused him be arrested and
imprisoned when sbstn from home In . distant county
OF The state, .itnout having previously issued H. ia.
sgainst bis properly required by statute TIE Court
In setting The and directing the defendant to
he di.charged from say AZ toe attorney
OF the plsriif would be liable action for false i'm
prRopmept ans as there night be some DOUBT to the
mesong the ACT and be have acted In good faith
think wo bave right to impose terms the defou-
dan We hers tore grant tie motion, condition that
be stipulae lot 10 brra an action for false imprson-
called to ,ns condition when CreF Justice Spencer says,
I'VE have again looked into the aft 1avt ch tna
motion made the nTst day OF the trim, and
consider rg the law talished that tbere
thing 10 arTaD the practice by the attorney for
the pla piiis, and hat II merely expert nent
their Part 10 get their money supposiug, probably that
II the deff ndant was taken execution q great
distance from home. he would lind some
satisfy the debt" The Court therefore directed
tie original rule TO be snded oy striking condi-
ton. In this case, therefore, there inmaon 0f
any waIt Of power in ,be Court to impose such condi-
lion but on the contrary, express affirmation aud
exefcre Of II, ard which sas only waived because the
Court ,asDed that the arrest ri the defendant Was
procured by malicious motives and Tor unuafS5le
Ioses In the oher referred 70 In the superior
Court OF toe Merchants Back Of New Haven against
HeDvy Dwight Jr the defendant arrested the 9th
OF August 1866, by virtue OF order male by one OF
the Judges Of that Court snd imprisoned thereon On
appeal from ssid order the heard before all the
Elk judges OF he super Tor Court Who the 18th OF De-
cember 1850 DECIDED At the said order OF should
be vacated and The defendant discharged from
hereunder" This order made upon the ndtiou that
The said def noADt shall. within ten days from
the date thereof, stipulate not to bring any
tctlon for fare imprisonment for damage
by reason Of bis said arrest, and deliver such
II upon the authority and oher cases. and tho
Uniform practice OF the Courts this State aud In Eng.
and That made the order did In vscatng the order OF
arrest IN this 10 the defendants Eugene Grele and
teicte Dtbud. 60 not think can greatly In fol-
loving uch precedept being salts ed that there no
alice IN causing arrest OF the whose dis
charge have directed, and that there Was probable
cause for the same the proper form Of the order 10 be
ntercd Ike in ali respects 70 the order OF the Superior
Court In the OF the Nero Bank OF New Haven
sgainat Henry Dwight, Jr.