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

BISSZL 0, WILION.—FALIIII II  r.—Sstacs !HO Paisonzaik AT STAI  This was an action against Alderman Wilson to recover damages for false imprisonment. The matter slow out of • conviction astaiast the plaintiff under the Copyright and Designs Act 6 & 6 Vie., rap. 100. Mr. Basel was imprisoned, under • warrant of the defendant, for not having personally attended • summons Pisued against him, although at one of the hearings to which the summons referred he was represented by his attorney, and at another by hie attorney and by eonmel also. The action was tried by Lord Campbell, at Guildhall, and resulted in • verdict for the plaintif with damage', 1501. A rule nisi for a new trial had been obtained on the Found that the warrant required the plaistilra attendance in person, and therefore the Alderman was justified in the course he had taken, which now came on for sroment. 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 • felon upon his apprehension, • coulee, of the propriety of which, his lordship still retained his former opinion,vix, that it was one which no one had • right to pursue under the (treatsstances. 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 meet useful public officer, Sir It. 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 get abroad that to search • person taken into custody on the charge of the commumion of a felony was illegal. Such a doetr:ne bad 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 *earthed ; but he would again eay, that when • tradesman of London was apprehended under a warrant from as 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.Lssh) said his lordship 3md very clearly distinguished between the cam where a primmer ought to be searched, and where not at the trial. The learned mussel then addressed himself to the question before the court, and contended that under the 11 & 12 Vint., e. 43 and 44, the summons issued by the alderman wee amply satisfied by the appearance of the attorney and counsel. The ewes of King v. Simpson" (1 Strange 46), '. the Qom. v. Hardwick" (2 Strange, 110), " the Queen v. Tamers" (2 Lord Ham 1,284), were cited in Report. Mr. H. Hill and Mr. Willem contended that the aldermaa was protected (min this action under the act 11 & 12 Viet e 44.  The sours took time to e'rluridef• PaaCTICI or