The Sun. — 1844-12-12 (London, England)

SUPPLING V. NURSE, OVENDEN, AND MURPHY. This was an action for entering the plaintiff's dwelling-house without a search-warrant, ransacking his drawers, &c., and taking away a pair of spectacles, &c. Mr. Watson and Mr. Hurnfrey, were for the plaintiff ; and Messrs. Jervis, Chamber; and Rawlinson for the defendants.  It appeared that the plaintiff, who was a person advanced in life, and who had formerly been in the army, was lately employed in the Polytechnic Institution in Regent-street; but, in consequence of some breach of the regulations of the establishment, had notice to quit. Some platina having been missed from the rooms, BUS picion fell, though without any just cause, as it appeared, on the plaintiff, and on the morning of the 19th of March last the defendant Ovenden, who was a policeman, accompanied by Murphy, who was also a porter at the establishment in Regent street, entered the plaintiff's lodging in Marylebone-street, whilst the plaintiff and his wife, who was in extremely delicate health, were in bed, ransacked their drawers, looked over their letters, behaved with some rudeness, and took away a pair of German silver spectacles belonging to Mrs. Surfling, because they were contained in a case which appeared to have been brought from the Polytechnic Institution. On the same day, between two and three o'clock in the afternoon, Ovenden, the policeman, returned with Mr. Nurse, who is, it appeared, one of the directors of the Polytechnic Institution, and a magistrate of the county. Nurse expressed a strong suspicion of plaintiff's honesty, and charged the plaintiff with having letters of his in his possession, which the defendant denied. The letters were then searched, but none addressed to Mr. Nurse could be discovered, but it turned out the spectacles had been fairly purchased by Mrs. Surfling from a vendor at the Institution, who stamped his address on the articles sold there. Mrs.i Surfling's health was so much injured by the proceedings adopted by the defendants, that her husband had to call in a medical attendant, who continued in attendance for some weeks, and whose charges amounted to 141. Bs. The defence was, that the defendants had acted bona fide upon reasonable grounds of suspicion, and without any unnecessary harshness. The LoED CHIEF BARON thought that there was no case made out against Murphy, and directed his acquittal. He was clearly of opinion, however, that Mr. Nurse and the policeman had acted illegally in s.arching the plaintiff s lodgings without a warrant. If Mr. Nurse was a magistrate, as stated, he ought to hare known better. 'The plaintiff was clearly entitled to some cornpenqttion for the inconvenience and annoyance he and his wife suffered at the hands of the defendants. The jury found fur the plaintiff; with 501. damages against Nurse sad Ovenden, and acquitted Murph;,  L:;ll,tx  bit he was pursued and again knocked down. While on the ground several of his assailants tried to get at his pockets, and kicked and struck him violently for some time, during which he kept crying out " Murder" loudly. After they left the prosecutor he rose and ran to a hovel standing in a field by the road side, where he found that he had }ost 4/. 125., which was safe in his pocket on leaving the Woolpack. The injuries which Richards sustained were of a tolerably severe nature ; a consider able quantity of blood flowed from the wound is his head, and he was for some time incapacitated from pursuing his avocations. A great number of witnesses were called to substantiate his testimony, but some discrepancies and inconsistencies were apparent in their respective narratives, originating probably in the obtuseness of their intellects, occasioned by the rough treatment to which their heads had been subjected, and to the. deep pots. tions they had imbibed.  The trial occupied the time of the Court nearly the whole day, and terminated et a late hour in the evening by a verdict of Guilty against all the prisoners, excrpt William Jones. John Junes then received sentence of imprisonment, with hard labour, for six months, arid all the rest for the term of twelve months.