Court Of Common Pleas, Sa...
Sittirzes at Mil PAiLt- EVANS V. SWEET. I:~j-k6rj~ "I WmvderIhaXVOtI Inle cestoration oflijg Ubiades Ili., .'aep hoya Io te Court did not sit in .Bancc. At ha]f Aj~ nine o'dclk LA(Chief Justice BEsT canme to GUlhiliall,Lou. E- to hold I s -a-3 an action to recover damages for a trespass committed the defendant in the illegal arrest and false imprisonment of the ntiffl There vere in the case great varieties ef pleas, counter- replications, rejoiipders, surrejoinders rebutters surrebutters, nher legal mystifications, the detals of which, howeverin. ti ngre professors of special pleading, wonid be exceedingly te,4a3 ;an unprofitable' to those who are happily ignorant of tnrzw e shaU therefore omit them altogether. The facts, ,trfpped of the legal dress iD which they appeared on Saturday, e simp,y the ss... ma first however, observe, that the plain- arid defendant kave been alrea?v Wore the Court and the public the same transactior which forrined the ground of this days pro- ng,The plaintiff:Evars in the course of last year had ac- ted a bill of exchajge for lwe believe) 251., which hat, before e, been taken in part payment of en account by a Mr. Taylor. a lbecame due, was dishonouted, and Evans, not having the inay when caled upon, was arrested and sent to a lock.up house. put in two persons as bail, which were accepted by the sheriff's cer, and vans liberated. The writ on which he had been ested was returnable on the 6th. of November following- but dkn&to the practice of the Court) he had till the 10th to tIfybaniL the interim, the defendant found that theparties who dbeen put In as bail at fitst were in insolrent circumstances. e of them 17a5 a prisoner for debt, and the other bad recently ndicharged fromn prison and his debts at the same time. The fendant, thinking that he could not rely with much confidence on appearance ot the plaintiff ' on the morrow of All S6uls," as bail-bond expressed it, took a step which he thought would ensure attendance, and thereby save himself from all risk. On the 7th Novemberhe put in speial bail who justided. (One of them asheriff's officer'e follower.) This was without the knowledge Evans. On the 9th of November, which was on Sunday, the ties who had thus become his bail, came to plaintiff's house, and him iltO custody, in order, as they said, to surrender him in rr own discharge. Plaintiff was taken from his wife and famsilv and ned to defendan's house, (a lock-up house), in Cursitor- reet, Chancery-lane, notwithstanding his repeated protests nst the illegality of the proceeding, and his declarations he had never authorized the defendant to put in '"spe- bail"for him. Soon after this, application was made to the urt'of Common Pleas on the subjecr, and a rule was obtained showr e3use why the plaintiffshould not be discharged out of cus- y. The Court, after hearing counsel against the rule, animad- rted in very strong terms upon the impropriety of defendantes duct, and ordered the rule to he made absolute, with costa. The plintiff,thirkdng that he was entitled to compensation 1r the el arrest and detention brought the present action. Sir. THESSItiER openedi the pleadings aend Air. Sergeant CROSS ted the caseac considerable length to ate jury; and in the course his'address, commented in no very measured terms upon what he tended was " vexatious and oppressive" conduct of the defend. tH lie then called several witnesses, who proved. the facts as tdabove. Xr SergeanL FZrT, rorthedefendant, after observing that lock_ houses were nowv no longer those abodes of tyranny and extortion e the last shllling was wrung from the pocket of the distressed bhor, wich had been so feelingly described by Fielding and other velist, added, that the lock-u p -houses of the present day were ducted on ahumrane'andliberal principle, and thatamongst those town, none were better managed than that of defendant. He then eeoed to contend that the plaintiffihaving in the first instance put improper bail, the Sheriff (and the defendant in this case repre. neted tie Sheriff was justified iu patting in special bail to secure nself from loss. The LoED CHIEF JUSTICE agreed in the law as thus laid down, observed, thit his doubt was whether he was not premature in tting in bail before the expiration of the time which was allowed Isintiff for sO dolng. I.Sergeant WILDE (who was with Mr. Sergeant PELL) ob- red, that in strictness, the plaintiff ought to have justified on the of ovember, and that the extension of that time to the 10th was a indulgence of the Court, and not a matter which the plaintiff d acim as a right. Mr. Sergeant PELL went on to contend, that the defendant hav- , the right to put in the bail above, the plaintiff could not main- n his action. and must be called. Mr. Sergearit Cuoss objected to this doctrine, and argued that !e action was well brought. The LouD CHIEF JUSTICE held the objection to be good, and ter allowing the defendant to give evidence, that the bail above put in by desire of the Ffficer of the Sheriff of M.tiddlesex, or- "red the plaintiff to he called, but said he would reserve the point ~r the opinion of the Court above-Plaintiff nonsithed. There were someotherc s tried, butnone ofthemofanyinterest. R'-'tT OF COMMl1ON PLEAS. SATURDnAY MAY 29.