Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page









COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—MAT 6. Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons Martin and Bramwell). THOMAS V. JONES AND ANOTHER. This was a case of a very singular nature. The plaintiff was the son of the parish clerk of Llaugwm, Denbigh- shire, and he brought the action against the Rev. Mr. Jenes, the Rector of that parish, and Mr. Humphreys, a sergeant in the county constabulary, for breaking and entering his house, and assaulting him. At the trial, which took place before Mr. Justice Byles, at the last assizes at Ruthin, the plaintiff said that he formerly at- tended the parish church, where he was a communi- cant, and the Rev. Mr. Jones told him that he was a religious and godly man. On one occasion, however, the plaintiff happened to attend a dissenting place of worship, and this coming to the knowledge of the Rev. Mr. Jones, the rev. gentleman lectured him upon his conduct, and said he would rather see him come from a public-house drunk, or from a house of another sort, than from such a place. Next Sunday, Mr. Jones read at church the canons directed against listening to here- tics, and made comments upon them to the congrega- tion. Afterwards, Mr. Jones asked the plaintiff if he heard what he read, and he replied in the affirmative, whereupon the reverend gentleman endeavoured to dis- suade him from again listening to sectarian preaching, observing that if he did listen to it, he had better leave the church altogether. The plaintiff said he would leave the church, and Mr. Jones then threatened to dis- card him as a member of the establishment. Three or four years afterwards, Mr. Jones charged him with poaching, without, as alleged, the slightest foundation, and solely out of spite for his going over to the dissent- ers. Subsequently, namely, in June last, the other de- fendant, Humphreys, armed with a warrant signed by Mr. Jones, who was a county magistrate, went to plain- tiff's house and made search for some shoes and a small quantity of butter which had been stolen from a neighbour's house. The missing articles were not found, and the plaintiff, who said that all this had been done maliciously, brought the present action for com- pensation in damages for the wrong he had suffered. The jury found that there was no malice or improper motive on the part of either of the defendants, that there was reasonable and probable cause for the course pursued, and that the defendant Humphreys had leave and license from the plaintiff to search his house. Upon this finding a verdict was entered for the defendants, but, in the event of this court being of opinion that the verdict should be for the plaintiff, the jury assessed the damages at a farthing. Mr. Mclntyre on the part of the Rev. Mr. Jones, now appeared to show cause against a rule which had been obtained by Mr. Morgan Lloyd to enter a ver- dict for the plaintiff for the farthing damages. The real contest between the parties was now a matter of costs. Mr. Baron Martin—Would it not answer the object of all parties to enter a stet processus ? Mr. Mclntyre—I will consult the solicitor. Mr. Baron Bramwell- You may get the plaintiff back to your fold. (Laughter.) Mr. McIntyre-I am afraid he has gone too far as- tray. (Laughter.) Mr. Horatio Lloyd—On the part of my client, Mr. Humphreys, I am prepared to a stet processus. Mr. Baron Martin--I think that is the best way of terminating the case. You may get Mr. Thomas to go to church next Sunday. (Laughter.) Ultimately the suggestion of the court was agreed to. Mr. Morgan Lloyd and Mr. Coxon appeared for the plaintiff in support of the rule.

[No title]