SUPREME COURT SITTINGS; Monday, September 13, 1847.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume III, Issue 223, 18 September 1847, Page 2

SUPREME COURT SITTINGS; Monday, September 13, 1847.

Before Mr. Justice Chapman, and a Special Jury. Byass v. St. Hill. Mr. Ross was engaged for the Plaintiff,, and Mr. Hart for the Defendant. This was an action brought against the defendant Henry St. Hill, Esq., as Resident' Magistrate, for damages sustained by the plaintiff for two cases of false imprisonment. From the facts as adduced in evidence, it appeared that in the month of April last the plaintiff was summoned before the defendant, as Magistrate, and fined for allowing his (plaintiff's) pigs to be at large, contrary to the provisions of the Cattle Trespass Ordinance, and on that occasion the plaintiff used language which was a contempt of Court, and" for which the plaintiff was sent to the lock-up ami after the lapse of an hour he was committed to gaol for forty-eight hours with solitary confinement. It was alleged by the counsel for plain- . tiff that there were twa imprisonments, yiz w one for being committed to the lock-op for one hour, for which a-separate action -had been^j brought against the defendant, and the other for being sent to the gaol with solitary confinement, for which another action "bad been brought, but that the two actions were conso^ lidated, and the Jury would have to consider what damage the plaintiff had sustained un- • der both imprisonments. It was admitted that the defendant had tendered one penny in amends for the imprisonment in the lock-up,' and two guineas for the other imprisonment. In the examination of the witnesses it appeared that persons subjected to solitary imprisonment were subjected to severe restrictions, and that the lower cells of the gaol were damp and unhealthy in rainy weather. His Honor said that upon the second count he should direct the Jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant having exceeded his jurisdiction, and that it would be for the, Jury to consideri der what damage the plaintiff had sustained. The Jury after retiring about ten minutes > returned a verdict for the defendant on the first count, and for the plaiatiff on the second . count, damages £5. ss. The trial occupied the whole of the. day*