Court Of Common Pleas, Sa...
Before the LoRD CUIEP JUSTr16C gnd a Special J2t*r2Y. I lMr. Sergeant PELL stated, that this was an action brought to re- cover compensation for a malicious prosecution instituted by the (lefendant against the plaintiff, on a charge of per mry, alleged to have been committed in an answer put in by Mr. Conder to a bill filed against him in the Court of Exchequer. The circamstances out of *vhich the case had arisen were briefly these .-The plaintiff, in the year 1818, wac in partnership with a person Mamed Evans, and they toeether carried on the business of teadealers and grocers. The defendant was engaged in the same business, and certain transactions took place betweed them, in consequertce of which they claimed from him a suna of 2361. 3s. lid. as for goods sold to him by them through the mnedium of a third person, of the name of Freeman. The defendant resisted the demana; an action was in consequence commenced agaiust him in 1819. in which the plaintiff and his partner recovered a verdict to the full amount of their claim. A motion was made in the Court of Common Pleas to set aside the verdict, but the result being unfavourable to the defendant, he tried to reverse tbywrit of error. Failing in that point, he filed a bill in the equity side of the Court of Exchequer, for the purPoSe of ob. tainirg a dicovery, and also astay ofproceedings. To that bill the plaintiff put in an answer, and it was dismissed. The defendant then iiled an amended bill, which was disposed of. in the same manner. Defeated thus in every direction, the defendhat next preferred an in- dictment against the plaintiff at the sesirons .or perjury, committed in his answer to the original bill That indictment, however, was not pressed on wbich the plaintiff removed it by ccrtiorari into the ,ourt of kingg'a Bench, and the record being then taken down for trial, itwasdiscoveredthat thereweresuchvariances between the alle- gation.s in the indictment and the statements in the answer, that the indictment could not be supported,, and the plaintiff was at once acquitted. He should here observe, that the ac. quittal,ftbough rocurel on legal objections, pave the. plaintiff' a right of action ; hse would, however, satisfy the jury by the defend. ant's own books, that one part of the answer alleged to be false was literally true, and by other authority that the remainderof it was equally consistent with fact. The learned sergeint concluded by ols serving, that when he had made out his case in the manner he had stated, he should bave entifled himsael to a verdict, aud he should call on thejury, in order fully to eseulpate the plaintiff, whose grand object was the vindication of his character., to give such iamsges as they,thought would answer that purpose, and be an adequate com- pensation for an injury like that of which he. complained. Some witnesses were then caUed to substantiate the cases but before they had proceeded far, a consultation was held among the defendant's counsel, when it was finally arranged that the cause should be terminatedl on the following conditions i-A verdiet had formerly passed in thia Court against the present defendant, in a cause similar to tbis, when the jury gave 6001. damages. Those da- mages the plaintiff now consented to relinquish, on the defendant's undertaking to pay the costs of all the indictments wvhich had been preferred in consequence of these sransactions, and otler expenses, amounting to about 8001 The CEIEFl JtrSTCz thought, that asthbe plaintifF's object was the vindication of his character, that object had been fully nsttained b>y this a:rrangemtent. A Juror who had aat on both the former trials, concurred with his Lordshiap in the propriety of thecurse novI adopted. COURT OF COMMONI PT,EAq RAvvT1nKV. .Tnr.v 9M. CONDElt V. CHALILENZR.