The Sun. — 1853-01-14 (London, England)

LAW INTELLIGENCE.  COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH-JAN. 13. BESSEL V. WILSON.-FALSE IMPRISONMENT.-SEARCH ING PRISONERS AT STATION-HOUSES,  vent was now in Gloucester Gaol, an order must issue to the keeper, to bring him before the court. Mr. Commissioner Phillips directed an order to issue to the gaoler, to bring the insolvent up from Gloucester, and for a day to be named when he might apply for a protecting order. The 31st inst. was appoointed for the further hearing of this singular case.  This was an action against Alderman Wilson to recoVer damages for false imprisonment. The matter arose out of a conviction against the plaintiff under the Copyright and Designs Act, 5 and 6 Vict., cap. 100. Mr. Bessel was imprisoned, under a warrant of the defendant, for not having personally attended a summons issued against him, although at one of the hearings to which the summons referred he was represented by his attorney, and at another by his attorney and by counsel also. The action was tried by Lord Campell, at Guildhall, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages 1501. A rule nisi for a new trial had been obtained on the ground that the warrant required the plaintiff's attendance in person, and therefore the Alderman was justified in the course he had taken, which now came on for  argument. Lord Campbell read his note of the proceedings at the trial. His lordship then said that he would take this opportunity of repeating the observations he had made on that occasion. He had then expressed his astonishment and disapprobation at the manner in which the plaintiff had been treated. He had been searched like a felon upon his apprehension, a course, of the propriety of which, his lordship still retained his former opinion—viz., that it was one which no one had a right to pursue under the circumstances. But he (Lord Campbell} also desired to remove a misapprehension which existed upon the subject of his remarks at the trial. It had been said that he denied there was ever any right to search a person taken into custody for felony. That was far from being his opinion. In cases of felony, such a right no doubt existed, and might be most properly and usefully exercised. His lordship had, however, understood from a most useful public officer, Sir R. Mayne—to whom the country was highly indebted for the manner in which he had on all occasions exercised his important duties—that an idea had got abroad that to search a person taken into custody on the charge of the commission of a felony was illegal. Such a doctrine had never been laid down by him, nor did he believe it would ever be laid down from the bench upon which he had the honour to sit. On the contrary, he had no hesitation in saying that it might often be highly conducive to the ends of justice that a person should be searched ; but he would again say, that when a tradesman of London was apprehended under a warrant from an alderman, merely because he had not appeared when summoned, to search his person in the manner in which the plaintiff's had been searched was contrary to law. The only pretence was that he might commit suicide or attack the alderman—a most absurd supposition.  Mr. O'Malley (with• whom was Mr. Lush) said his lordship had very clearly distinguished between the case where a prisoner ought to be searched, and where not at the trial. The learned counsel then addressed himself to the question before the Court, and contended that under the 1.1 and 12 Viet., c. 43 and 44, the summons issued by the alderman was amply satisfied by the appearance of the attorney and counsel. The cases of "fig v. Simpson" (1 Strange 46), "the Queen v. Hardwick" (2 Strange 110), " the Queen v. Tanner" (2 Lord Raym 1,284), were cited in support. Mr. H. Hill and Mr. Willies contended that the alderman was protected from this action under the act 11 and 12 Vict., c. 44. The ourt took time to consider.