FOTHERINGHAM v. ADAMS EXPRESS CO.
In the United States Circuit Court, Eastern District, Missouri, September 24, 1888.
Reported in 36 Federal Reporter, 252.
Thayer, J.[[31]] With reference to the motion for a new trial which has been filed in this case and duly considered, it will suffice to say, that I entertain no doubt that the jury were warranted in finding that plaintiff was unlawfully restrained of his liberty from about the 27th or 28th of October until the 10th of November following; that is to say, for a period of about two weeks. The testimony in the case clearly showed that during that period he was constantly guarded by detectives employed by defendant for that purpose; that he was at no time free to come and go as he pleased; that his movements were at all times subject to the control and direction of those who had him in charge; that he was urged by them on several occasions to confess his guilt, and make known his confederates; and that he was subjected to repeated examinations and cross-examinations touching the robbery, of such character as clearly to imply that he was regarded as a criminal, and that force would be used to detain him if he attempted to assert his liberty. The jury in all probability found (as they were warranted in doing) that during the time plaintiff remained in company with the detectives, he was in fact deprived of all real freedom of action, and that whatever consent he gave to such restraint was an enforced consent, and did not justify the detention without a warrant. It is manifest that the court ought not to disturb the finding on that issue.[[32]]
BIRD v. JONES
In the Queen’s Bench, Trinity Vacation, 1845.
Reported in 7 Queen’s Bench Reports, 742.
This action was tried before Lord Denman, C. J., at the Middlesex sittings after Michaelmas term, 1843, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
In Hilary term, 1844, Thesiger obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection.
In Trinity term, in the same year (June 5), Platt, Humfrey, and Hance showed cause, and Sir F. Thesiger, Solicitor-General, supported the rule.
The judgments sufficiently explain the nature of the case.
Cur. adv. vult.
In this vacation (9th July), there being a difference of opinion on the bench, the learned judges who heard the argument delivered judgment seriatim.
Coleridge, J. In this case, in which we have unfortunately been unable to agree in our judgment, I am now to pronounce the opinion which I have formed; and I shall be able to do so very briefly, because, having had the opportunity of reading a judgment prepared by my Brother Patteson, and entirely agreeing with it, I may content myself with referring to the statement he has made in detail of those preliminary points in which we all, I believe, agree, and which bring the case up to that point upon which its decision must certainly turn, and with regard to which our difference exists.