Spitty Genealogy

 Research & data

Court of the Queen's Bench, Westminster

   This was an action for false imprisonment under a charge of felony, to which there was a justification. Mr. Serjeant Bailantine and Mr. Wills were for the plaintiff; Sir R. Collier and Mr. J. Brown, Q.C., were for the defendant.
   The plaintiff, a boatman, had lived for many years at Bradwell-on-the-Sea, in Essex, a place at which there is a Coastguard station. In 1860, while one Carr was in command of the Coastguard there, some Government stores were sold, out of which some ropes were purchased by the plaintiff, as it was said, quite openly. Two or three years afterwards the defendant, Captain Kitchen, came to the station in command of the Coastguard, in place of Carr, and it was said some disputes and ill-feeling had arisen between him and the plaintiff. Be that as it may, the plaintiff, after having had the rope in his possession so long, sold the boat to which he had attached it, with all the belongings, to one Rose, and the defendant finding that the rope bore the Government mark, conceived that it had been stolen, and took both Rose and the plaintiff into custody, on the charge of felony. The plaintiff, it was stated, was taken out of his bed on a Saturday night, carried 20 miles to the nearest gaol, and kept in custody all Saturday night, and all Sunday and Monday, until on the Tuesday he was brought before the magistrate, by whom he was at once discharged, as also was Rose. Such is the substance of the case, which finished the rest of the day, and was likely to last part of tomorrow.

5 Dec 1866 (page 9, col a) Civil Actions - Spitty v. Kitchin

   This case was commenced yesterday, and the trial continued today. It was one of two motions for false imprisonment against Captain Kitchen, of the Coastguard, which had arisen out of the following circumstances :- In 1860 the plaintiff, who resides at Bradwell-on-the-Sea, a Coastgaurd station, purchased some rope of the Coastguardsman in charge of the station, at a sale of Government stores. The rope bore the Government mark upon it, of course, was known to be part of the Government stores; but it was said that it was sold as part of some old stores. It was used by the plaintiff to attach to a boat belonging to him, which in 1863 he sold to one Rose, the plaintiff in the other action. The defendant, Captain Kitchen, at the time was in command, and some time afterwards, seeing the rope with the Government mark upon it, supposed it to have been stolen, and finding whom Rose had it from, had both him and the plaintiff taken into custody - the one charged with stealing the rope, the other with receiving it knowing it to have been stolen. They were both discharged without hesitation by the magistrates, and these actions (the present one and that by Rose, which stood next upon the list) were brought.
    Mr. Serjeant Bailantine and Mr. Wills were for the plaintiff; Sir R. Collier, Mr. J. Brown, Q.C., and Mr. M. Howard were for the defendant.
   Witnesses were called on both sides, and the trial lasted the greater part of yesterday and all today. At a late hour the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff - damages, 50£.
   The other case stands for trail.