The Sun. — London, England, 1819-07-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 7. WESTMINSTER ELECTION RIOTS. JFWELL V. BI4.LSH VvV AND ANOTHEII. Mr. FaseteASSE opened the pleadings. The de claration set forth, that, on the 3d of March, 1819, a number of persons riotously and tumaltii oifsly assembled in the parish of St. Paul's, Cesent-garden. and, being so assembled together, assailed the house of the 'delltiff, which they in jured and d e maged, by throwing stones at the eciudows, doors, &c. The action was brought nesiost the defendants as inhabitants of the Inn tired' Ossulstoo, in which the city of Westmin ster is situated, to recover compensation in damages for the injury sustained. The defen dants pleaded that they were not liable. Mr. SC AIM LTT stated, that the present action was brought under the statute of ehe s s7th of his :Majesty, which was passed for the purpose of rendering more effectual several former statutes, by which the inhabitants of every hundred, where any riotous or tumultuous assemblage of persons proceeded to commit acts of violence, and da maged the property of any individual, were made liable for the injury so sustained from their ille gal conduct. The principle of the law was as ancient as the time of Allred, and had, at later periods, found its way into different Acts of Par liament, but it was only .necessary for him to trouble the Jury with the later statutes.- By the 57th of Geo. 111 cap. 19, it was enacted, that, " in any case where any houses, shops, or build ings whatsover, or any part thereof, shall be de ,etroyed, or in any manner damaged or injored, or any furniture, goods, or commodities therein, be injured, destroyed, damaged or taken away, . any riotous or tumnltutais assemblage of per sons, the inhabitants of the city, town, or if within . any hundred, the inhabitants of the same shall be liable to the payment of damages for such injury; and the same may be demanded, sued for, and re covered, in the mode pointed out by the statute of George I. enacted for the prevention of riotous and tumultuous assemblies." Having stated the laW on the Subject, the Learned Counsel next proccedsd to detail the filets of the case. The -Hundred of Ossulston, it Wes proper to observe, cony prised City of Westminster; and, in the nieuth of March last, an election for a Member to represent that city in Padiament took place, in coosequence of the death of Sir S. that election the Hon. George Lamb and Mr. tlobbouse were the candidates. The populace took -an active part in favour of the letter—and, svhen they found that he was tiot likely to succeed, they had recourse to acts of eioe lence. He said the populace of Westminster p for it could not be supposed that any of the respectable inhabitants of Westminster would countenance. tumult and violence,- The^ mUb, having no property themselves, were, in general, very indifferent as to the mischief which they ditl to the property of others. The respectable inha bitents could not he identified with those riotous acts, for, whatever might be their politics, he svlas sure they would conduct _themselves peace ably, The 'rabble, who !night at - any time be hired for half-a-crown a .pearl, enraged that the popular candidate had .bcen thrown out, deter mite el to avenge themselves on the friends of the other party. It was customary for the successful candidate to be chaired, which ceremony was usually performed in WeEminster with a great deal of decorum. Preparations were made in the usual t% ay for chairing Mr. Lamb, and several re'Teetable friends assembled _to conduct him eiheolgli the streets. In the course of the-morn iiig, however, the mob, discontented at the de feat of their favourite, and angry that he was net to he chaired, assembled, and determined to imertupt tale adherents of Mr. Lamle. The con stables and persons in auttiorit y endeavoured to pre serve the peace, and in the effort they were assisted by the friends of Mr. Lamle. Many gentlemen, who were friendly to Mr.L. assembled near the hustings, in the hope of keeping the mob off ; but all their exertions failed, for it appeared tube the settled d e t e rmination of the rubble to commit violence. It was said, in former times, that at an Irish elec tion the unsuccessful Candidate was always chaired, and the successful Candidate was obliged to fly for his life. The Westminster election ter minated in neatly a similar way. The Learned Counsel did not exactly know whether Mr. Hob house was chaired ; but it was most certain that Mr. Lamb was obliged to fly for his life. Mr. Jewell, the plaintiff, was owner of a house in Henrietta -street, where Mr. Lamb's Central Com mit tee held their meetings. To this house there was a back passage, through Covent-garden Church-yard, from the hustings.—When the con duct of the mob became dangerously violent, Mr, Lamb found it 'necessary to retreat from the hust ings by this bark passage. NlThen the populace foetid that he had escaped, they assembled round Mr. Jewell's house. They broke his windows, attempted to destroy his doors, and endeavoured to sear up the iron rails, for the purpose of using theta as instruments of offence. They were not dispersed until a detachment of the Horse Guards art iced, and deterred them from further violence. The Jury would, however, hear, that in die course of the evening the mob pursued a similar line of conduct, and attacked several other houses. A se ell-organized mob (he regretted, for the sake of public justice, that the leader was not known) assailed the residences of several of Mr. Lamb's friends. About seven o'clock in the evening, they returned to the charge at Mr. Jewell's house ; but the constables having mustered in great force, farther .mischief was prevented. The damage done amounted to 241. 4s. Bd. which he would prove by the di ff erent persons employ e d to repair •the injury. The defendants were nominally so, and bad - their remedy, should a verdict be found for the Plaintiff, against the Hundred. The formal parts of the case being proved, ?Ir. Dixon Holmes was examined; and be stated that he was asquainted with the plaintiff, who was a carver and gilder, residing in Hen rietta -street, Covent-garden. Mr; Lamb's Cen tral Cotmnittee was held at his house. 'Witness attended at .the whole of. the last election, and recollected all the occurrences that took place. Ott the 3d of March, when the Election terminated. • The witness tllen described the conduct of the' populace when they surrounded the plaintiff's house. Stones, as large as a man's head, were thrown at the windows, the sashes of which were broken, and part of the wainscot, and some of the furniture of one of the rooms, destroyed. The mob cried out—" Hobhouse for ever ! Down with Lamb!" They strove to force open the doors, arid exclaimed—" him, we'll have him.ont !" meaning'Mr. Lamb. Had it not been :or the arrival of the horse-girards, much more mischief worild7hay.t been done. Witness was alarmed, and himself in his own defence. Robert Jokuson cOrroboraied Oils evidence, and spoke also to rue attack in ihe J. J. proved the amount of the damage. Mr. CAZBLEE, for the defendants, stated, that unless the damage complained of were sustained in consequence of an attempt made by a tumul tuous assembly to 'poll down the house or tene ment, the person who suffered the loss could not recover, under the 57th of the King. In this in• stance, the Learned Counsel contended, no proof was given of such intervion.—The mob appeared fanxious merely to come in contact with Mr. Lamb. Chief Justice ASBOTT bell, that the case made out cleqrly came within the Act of the 57th of the King. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da mage 241. 45. Bd. wisHART V. SIR F. BURDETT, BART. AND I'LICR. This action teas brought under circumstances similar to those detailed in the former case. Mr. Wishart, who is well known as having taken an ac:ive part in the Elections for Westrnioster, for several years past, had, it appeared, become ob noxious to the people, in consegnence of the part be took at the last Election, and the populace proceeded to his house in Coventry-street, on the night of the 3d of March, and broke his windows. Proof having been given of the damage sus tained— Mr. BLACKBURNE (with whom was Mr. J. EvANs) with considerable ability addressed the Jury on behalf of the defendants. He observed, that they were evidently singled out, both of them being very well known, as defendants in this action, for the purpose of itupr:fssing the public with a belief that they encouraged the riots which took place in Westminster in March last. The Learned Counsel stated, that he would ►rove, by incontestible evidence, that the mob, who did all the mischief complained of, was hired by Mr. Lamb's CoMmittee, to which the plaintiff be longed—and, if he brought this fact Lorne to the plaintiff, the Jury must find a verdict for the de fendants, since he who employed a mob could not recover any compensation from the Hundred, if the persons be had caused to assemble together committed depredations on Lis own properly. He Olen called VV. Waller, %vim deposed - that he had been employer in the late electiOn, by a person of the name of Bond, ho belonged to the Bow-street establishment, to stand at the south end of the hustings, for the purpose of cheering ?Ir. Lamb when he addressed the people. He was also di rected, when Mr. Hobhouse spoke, to make the most, discordant noise possible. Witness went with Bond to a public-house called the Ship, in James-street, Covent-garden, where he saw a great number of persons, who were employed by Bond to attend at the hustings for the pur pose of supporting Mr. Lamb. IVitness, however, did not like the company, amongst whom were Dolly Smith, Cropley, Randall, Tom Jones, West Country Dick, and several other fighting men. In consequence, Bond told him, as he wrote a good hand, be would be useful in making out lists of the men employed. Witness did so, and could speak to about 122 men who were employed-by Bond. He was present when money was paid to the different leaders. Some had 12 men under their command, other's double that number. On Tuesday, the 2d of March, witness went with Bond to Mr. Lamb's Committee-room, in Hen rietta -street. Bond went there for the purpose of getting money to pay the men. They saw Cap tain Prescott, one of the Committee, to whom Bond said, that as he had engaged the men for three days, Ile could not discharge them at a moment's notice. ::apt. Prescott said lie would not give him any more money, that be bad already received 241., and his men were worth nothing, for half a dozen stout fellows would beat them all. Witness made out an account of the money paid by Bond to the men, which be saw delivered to Mr. Holmes. On his cross-examination, witness said be was employed at present to make out tradesmen's account 9. William Bond, a Bow-street patrole, deposed that he was unacquainted with Mr. Wishart, and did not believe he would know him if be saw tutu. Was not present when the candidates were proposed at the last election. During the elec tion,he was frequently at Mr. Lamb's Committee room, Henrietta-street. The principal person he saw there, as a managing person, was Mr. Holmes. He was at the Conimittee:ruom on the Saturday of the second week of the election. He saw Mr.- Holmes and Captain Prescc“t there, but did not know any other person. He received in structions up stairs as to what was to be done on the Monday by a person who, he was inform ed, was Mr. Macdonald. Mr. SCARLET: objected to this evidence. The defendant's Counsel ought to connect Mr.Wishart with these transactions. At present two indivi duals were introduced, who, it did not appear, had any connexion with the present plaintiff. The CHIEF JUSTICE said, it was, very difficult to prescrible the course a Counsel was to pursue.— Much must be left to his discretion. This was but the second witness—and he was of opinion that the examination should be proceeded in. Mr. SCARLET? was convinced that his Learned Friend could not, by this witness, connect Mr. Wishart with the transaction of hiring the mob. Mr. BLACKBURNE then called Mr. Holmes, who deposed, that be was Secretary to Mr. Lamb's Central Committee. He knew Mr. %Vtshart. He very seldom appeared at the Committee-room, and took no part in any discussion. Plaintiff was not at the Committee on the Saturday of the se cond week ut tae election. He was then out of town. Plaintiff returned on the Monday, and called on him for the •tote of the poll. He never. came there for any purpose, but to ask the state o f the poll.—Witness could not say whether he was a Member of the Committee or not. Mr. Macdonald, M. P, stated, that there was no Committee appointed to conduct Mr. Lamb's. election, but that a number of his friends came forward to promote his election ; that Mr. Wish art, with himself, was one of those friends, but took no part in the business, merely calling now and then to see the state of the poll that in con sequence of the interruptions which electors de sirous of voting for Mr. Lamb experienced • in their way to the bustings,, from a tumultuous mob, it was thought expedient to employ a nom ' her of persons under the'directions of a constable named Bond, to keep a passage clear from the Committee-room' to the Hustings ; - that those persons were positively enjoined to conduct them selves peaceably, and not strike any body, unless struck by others ; and that Mr. Wishart was wholly ignorant at the fact of such persons hav ing beet) employed. Mr. BeAckevaNn said he had no other evidence to connect the plaintiff with the transactions' in question. SCARI.ETT, in reply, disclaimed, on the part of the plaintiff, any intention of putting Sir Francis Burdett a! , (1 Mr. Place on the rec,rrd as defendants, horn any improper motive, or with a view to excite prejudice. They happened to be selected as respectable inhabitants of the Hundred. In the course of his observations, 'the Learned Counsel, in alluding to the known anxiety of Sir Francis Hurdett, as an advocate for Pat hamentary Reform, said, 1t would say this of the Honour able Baronet, that, in his opinion, from the mode he had adopted to attain that object, he was the greatest enemy of Parliamentary Reform. With respect to the other defendant, he was a tailor by trade, but he believed him to be also a most re spectable man, and also, he was informed; had abilities and character which would adorn any station of life. As to the merits of the case, there was not the tiightest evidence to connect the plaintiff with the' nature of the defence set up. The Cut ill , JUSTICE chtirged the Jury, that the defence set on, it it had been proved, would have Ibeen a satisfactory answer. to this action, but i na smuch as it had totally tailed, the plaintiff was I entitled to a verdict. _ _ _ The Jury seemed to be in doubt, and desired to withdraw. The CIIIEv JUSTICE then entered into more de taiied'observations upon the case. Mr. SCARLETT was heard in continuation of his previous reply, and at length the Jury interposed, and said they were satistied.—Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 151..135. CLARKE V. SAME. This was a similar action against the same defendants for the. like cause, brought by the plaintiff, the keeper of tare George public-house; Stanhope-street, Clare-mArktt, 7.. hose windows were broken by the mob, to the anion= of 71. 17s. 6d. . . Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. ALDERSON conducted the plaintiff' case,, and Mr. BLACKBURNF. and Mr. EVANS, the defendants. The case was -clearly proved. Mr. MACKE WINE said, he had no defence upon the merits, but submitted that the mob who did the mischief were not the mob contemplated by the Statute on which the action was brought. The Cm Er JUSTICE was clearly of a different opinion, bat reserved the point. Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 61. l3s. 6d. O'NEIL V. 'SAMS. _ This was a similar action, by the keeper of the Regent's Coffee-house, Newcastle-'street, Strand. Damage was done to the plaintiff's house by the mob, to the amount of 131.95. 2d. and a verdict was found for the plaintiff for that sum. SHELLEY V. SAME. This was another action, by the proprietor of the British 'Coffee-house, Cockspnr-street.--Vertiict for the plaintiff—Da• wages 91. 133. SIR THOMAS HARVEY rARQUHAR V. SAME. _ _ _ This plaintiff, residing in Park-place, having also sustained damage to the amount of sal. 4s. ;id. frein the same cause, a verdict was found in his favour for that sum. DAVI3 V. SAME. This plaintiff being owner of St. Anne's Coffee-house, Dean-street, Soho, recovered a verdict for 451. LORD SEFTON v. SAME. The Noble Plaintiff brought a similar action for the damage his house sustained in consequence of the violence of the mob in question, who attacked his Lordship's residence in Ar lington-street, on the same day, whilst his Lordship and fa mily were at dinner. The .amount of the damage was 24 1 . 1 6 s . 2d, ; and the plaintiff!: case being proved, Mr. BLACKBURNE, on behalf of the defendants - , set up a si milar defence as in the case of Mr. Wishart, but the evidence completely failed iu sheaving that the Noble Plaintiff was a hired to disturb the peace of the City of member of - Mr. Lamb's Committee, or knew any thing of any person's therefore, under the Learned Judge's directions, found for the plaintiff--:Da,weges 241. 16s. 2d. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 7. LEVY V. ROBERTS AND ANADTHER. This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff*, David Levy, against the Sheriffs of Lon don. The plaintiff was the father ot Lewis Levy, who, together with Moseley Woolfe and Kinnear, were recently convicted ot conspiracy, and Lewis Levy was sentenced to pay a fine of 50001: The Sheriffs of London proceeded upon the writ, Le earl' fluids, to take the goods of Lewis Levy, and on arriving at his house, they found the present plaintiff in' possession under a warrant of attorney. He alleged the property was his, he Laving, in . 1814, advanced to hi's son 5001. to assist him in business. _He took a warrant of attorney for that sum. Evidence was called to prove it was a bona fide transaction. The tnoney it appeared remained unpaid up to the time of pro secution against Lewis Levy, when the plaintiff, to secure himself, put his warrant of attorney in force. • . . The Sheriffs having insisted on their seizure, the present action was brought for the trespass. The Jury bad to consider whether the warrant of attorney was fraudulent, or a fair transaction. The Jury, atter being out for a considerable time, returned with a verdict for the defendants. ROLLS COURT, JULY 7. SAVILLE V. THE EARL OP SCARBOROLTUII AND OTHRRII. Mr. Batt. stated, that this was en application to the Court fur the purpose of having certain property, which had belonged to the late Sir George Saville, and which he by his will bad or dered to be removed from his residence, in Lei cester-fields, to his family mansion at Rufford, in Nottinghamshire, restored to the said man sion. Sir George Saville, whose character had been well known thirty years ago, having had no Mlle. was desirous that the family name should not become extinct, and for that purpose, by his last will, he bequeathed his pwperty to his nephew, Richard Lumley, upon condition, that if the ,c " — R ch ar d Lumley should ever become Earl of . Sor e borough, to which Earldom it was p r obable " .0 would succeed, the property which belonged the . Saville family should descend to h i s • nes;e, brother, and continue without a possibility.ot " Saville estates being vested in any future Bar i c c Scarborough. Atirid other bequests be directe d that the family pictures should be heir-looms for 1 110 ! - i of the proprietor of the Saville estates. By the evi I , there were certain gentlemen appointed trustees' who were directed to sell such parrs of his perioti s ai , property, which, at the time of his death, shout( be found in the mansion-house at Rufford „ his house in Leicester-fields, as they should thiok. proper, and whatever they should suppose wort of preservation was directed to be collected at. Rufforl for the benefit and use of his heir, Richard. Lumley. This latter Gentleman had, since death of his Uncle, succeeded to the Earldom °t Scarborough, and the Saville property of cour se • descended to the present plaintiff, the Rev. J. f j ! Saville. The family pictures were in the posses' sion of the plaintiff, but the other property, pre served by the Executors, had been removed by ti' s Earl of Scarborough from Rufford. Front t he context of the will, from the apparent desire elbi ca , 0 Sir George Saville entertained of preserving , 1 ' property-for the benefit and use of the person ° I • possession of his name and property, as well a t from the circumstance of his having particeler l Y specificed the continuance of the family p icture', as heir-looms, it was contended, that the righ t ' to that property was vested in the proprietor of , the estates, and not in the first heir, who }tad forfeited the possession - by becoming Earl to Scarborough. Mr. PEPYS followed on the same side. Sir A. PIGGOTT coutrn'ndcd the zeal displayed on behalf of the plaintiff for the preservation of, the articles which it had been said belonged I °' Rufford Abbey in past ages, and which bad long been in possession of the Saville fatuity. Bot . tbe; words of the will respecting that property, instead of making it a heir•loom, declared - that it s hoeld he for the sole use and benefit of the heir Richard) Lumley. Mr. HEALD also, on behalf of the defentio t • contended, that, the value of the litigated pro' perty, as stated in the answer, did not amouut t° any considerable sum. independent of the see eifie words of the bequest being favourable to his client, the Counsel on the opposite side had not: shewn that the title to the said property was wester { in the plaintiff. The MASTER of the ROLLS rook a Inmitrons view of the case, and after having dwelt with grea t care on each circumstance favourable to the plaits' t:tf, concluded by stating, that his impression WO' that the right to that property was vested in the • defendant. lie would, however, again read over the will, arid if he saw any reasons for altering hi' opinion, he would take an opportunity of statiog it to the parties. NORTHERN CIRCUIT. Before Mr. Baron Wood and Mr. Justice nayley. County and City of York—Saturday, July 24. Durham—Monday, Aug. 9. Newcastle and Town of—Saturday, August 14. Carlisle—Friday, August 20. Appleby—Saturday, august 28. Lancaster,-Wedne;day, September t. SHOCKING ACCIDENT.--Yesterday evening' 8 0 Inquest was held at the sign of the Castle, is Shepherd's -court, Upper Brook-street, Grosve' square, on the body of Eliza Fox, a child only' 16 months old. It appeared from the evidence that the deceased was the (laughter of a coach.. man, who occupied apartments in the Mews ad.. joining, and on the preceding day the deceased was given to her little brother to nurse ; he held her in his arms near the window, when by a wk., den jirk, and he not being strong enough to hold herohe got out of his arms and fell headlong into the Mews, where she was killed oti the spot• Verdict—/iccidental Death. COgONER'S REPORT.--The Coroner was calla on Sunday to view the body of Mr. Rom ER, frQui the Liverpool Theatre. He made his appearance at our•Theatre on Thursday evening, and put 41 0 end to his existence the next day, by cutting his. throat.--(New York Paper.) COURSE OF EXCHANGE, TUESDAY, JULY 6. Amsterdam Ditto, at Sight I i 14 Rotterdam ll 18 t Vs. Antwerp , le oEr.Slonel liamburgh Altona Paris, 3 Day's sight 25 to a Us. Ditto llotirdeaux, ditto Frankfort on the Main . Madrid • 37k • • Effectire Cadiz Bil boa sai Gibraltar 32 Barcelona -.....•._... Leghorn • •• Genoa . 45 —Venice, Ital. Liv 2.ti - , Malta... ..50 —Naples 4O Palermo Lisbon Oporto Rio Janeiro Dublin .. ...1bA..... Cork ... 154 per Cent. Agio of the Bank on Uolland.... 2 per Cent. BULLION. Portugal Gold, in. Coin YV YY v 1.0 0 9 per 0%. New Dollars 0 5 0 Silver, in Bars BIRTH. On Tuesday, the Gtla hist, at iChcyne-walk, Chelsea, Nys. Richard Lee, of a son. MARRIED. On T.tiesday last, at Mary-le-hone Church, William Yates. Peel, Esq. ''b '. for the Boiougli of TaMworth, and second son of Sir i-cdbert Peel, Bart. to the Right Hon. Lady J' Moore, second daughter of the Earl of Mount Cashel'. DIED. On Friday last, after a short illness, Joseph Yates, Esq. 4 Sneed Park, Bristol, aged 69. His memory will be ever dear to his relations, and to the friends who have felt the gvaddes. of his heart. At Paris, on the 29th June, the Hon. Alice Emily Percit second daughter of Lord Loraine, in the nth year of her . age. LONDON: Printed by .1. B. CARSTAIRS, of No. 29, Great Ormond-street, Queen-square; and published by W. A• SCRIPPS, of No. 7, South Molton-street, at Tut - SUS Office, No. 112, Strand ; where Advettisernents,-Ordmir Letters, So. (post-pail) must be aldressed. 1 „ I f„,„ t ro 41) 11, Ite , •.. ~"u t ) c, d,