The Times, Wednesday, Sep 05, 1821; pg. 3; Issue 11343; col B


                              SUMMER ASSIZES.
                                    --------------
                     CARLISLE, FRIDAY, AUG. 31.

     FALSE IMPRISONMENT. - CROSBY V. FORSTER, ESQ.     [continued]

Rev. Edward STANLEY. - I was at the election. I recollect being with Mr. ELLIS
when we met Mr. FORSTER on the morning of the 25th. Mr. ELLIS lived at
Crofthead, a gentleman of property, and nephew to Sir James GRAHAM, of Netherby.
Mr. ELLIS and I had been previously to the gaol. Mr. ELLIS said, "Mr. FORSTER, I
have been wishing to see you, to tender my bail for CROSBY."

Mr. SCARLETT objected, that refusal to receive bail, being a substantive ground
for action, could not be introduced here, which was an action of trespass.

Mr. Justice HOLROYD thought it was a continuation of the imprisonment, and came
within an action of trespass.

Witness. - Mr. FORSTER had a very large bludgeon in his hand. He made no answer
to the offer, but said, "I'll knock you down if you interrupt me." He made no
other answer. Mr. FORSTER went up the street. Mr. ELLIS said, "Mr. FORSTER, we
have been long acquainted and I won't at this time be bullied." Finding that he
was admitted for further examination, I thought I was not justified in
interfering further. I took it for granted that in the course of three days he
would be fully committed or liberated. I went to the gaol at the end of three
days. (The further inquiry into the 2d charge of commitment was refused.) Mr.
FORSTER is a gentleman of landed property, a banker, and a magistrate. It was a
contested election. (It was refused as evidence what side of the election the
defendant took.)

Cross-examined. - It was the same morning that I had offered bail that we met
Mr. FORSTER. I am a magistrate myself.

Mr. BROUGHAM. - That is my case.

Mr. SCARLETT. - I submit to your Lordship whether this is a case against the
defendant, and whether it is not evident an assault was made.

Mr. Justice HOLROYD. - It does not appear on the oath of Mr. HEYSHAM.

Mr. SCARLETT. - When a magistrate sees an assault, he may act on his own view. I
submit whether what is at present in evidence is not justified as on his own
view.

Mr. Justice HOLROYD. - That is for the Jury; and further the confinement of
three days for further examination.

Mr. BROUGHAM. - And the second warrant.

Mr. SCARLETT. - The only question is, whether the first commitment was lawful.

Mr. Justice HOLROYD. - And continued lawful. I think he should have had him up
in the interim for further examination.

Mr. SCARLETT. - The riot act had been read. The assault was his own view.
Further investigation was necessary respecting the time the plaintiff was there
after the riot act had been read, but further evidence was not required of what
took place in the magistrate's own view.

Mr. Justice HOLROYD. - I am of opinion that I cannot non-suit the plaintiff.