The Express.
London, England, 1859-04-30 00:00:00

Mato frattlignut.
COURT OF EXCREQUIR.—APIIIL 29.
Illitisgs hi Banco.— (Before the Lord Chief Baron, and
Barone Martin, Bramwell, and Channell.)
COWARD f. BADDILIT.—WHAT CONOITVTES AN
AINIACLT.
Thhe was an adios for assault and fete imprisonment tried
before Mr. Bares Bramwell at OulltaU. The defendant.
art, pleaded not guilty • seriethitihat the plaintiff bad as-
saulted the defendant; and , that the laintiff bed se-
sauteed the defendant in vim cd tan police.
The foots of the cue as proved at the trial were these :
The plaintiff, Mr. Thome Lane Cowed, who is the financial
manager of the Kornis" Peat newspaper, wse, about two
o'clock on the morning of the Slat of October,
after "having dined with his tried, Mr. Denham Smith,
the analytical chemist at Righbury, be home, when
04istr:ag through Islington-green be saw • large fire
end the defendant wet directing the engne. The
cesaldering that the defesdent t
wee Sat properly
fonitline g the fire out, crossed from the paument, aM, tench-
blot, tcrahim be wee spreading the flamee, 'skied him
at sametme why he did not direct the water to the nut
Loner, etehilteed ought lire. The eletedent taking no ma-
tte, tbetriff again remonstrated with him, and went back
to the at eltich be originally stood ; whereupon
the debedkot gave him into the ourody of a policemen, and
hews takes to the station house, and locked up all night in.
a cell with 68166 WS who were convicted thieves The
plaintiff offered to wd for bait alter giving his same and
address, bet the pollee on duty reineed to do eo on the ground
that he Wieintackeldd.' The plaintiff in hie evidence sworn
he wee nok mad ta tgii he was -supported by the testimony
of the gintiomen with-whom he had dined and other mit-
osis,. Se •40 414011161 that he had ever touched the
r4ld".
4C the delludent the ere wee that the plabdfff, who wen
intoxicated, had saga him by the arm and swung him
violently round, end live witnesses swore to the assault
relied upon by the defendant as an answer to the action.
Tha jury found that there had been an ,imposition of the
bands by the plaintiff on the deissident with the view of ah
tramlnghis anannoo, bat _ without any intention of commit-
ting an assault, sad tent • verdict for the plettitiff, with
damages IW. • role sid was athesquently obtained to set
aside the verdict and to enter it for the defendant. Tit ride
now ones on for wisest, the question being what In law
constituted an smut
Mr. Beasley showed eases against the rule, contending
that there had bean so assault committed by the plaintiff,
and that the Whig of the jsey mated him, as the mare
Imposition of hands for the purpose of Mesatlsss the attention
et the defendant to his awn ace, ens not eadSoiant to sup,
Dort the defendant's plea. In esupdrt of his argument
he cited "Raiding v. Till" (3 teem sad Wellb7)
" kat v. Shepherd" (3 Wileat's Report); sad " Ruh v.
Pam*" (32 B.).
Mr. Bum Chanson said the plaintiff, weeding to the
evldeece, did not intend to reproach the defendant but to re-
with him, and the intention was as ingredient in
• 4086 el eseault, for according to Hoskins en usault meant
in a rude, hostile manner.
Mr. Burnley submitted there bad been no smart or
battery, such as to jetty the defendant in giving the plain-
tiff into custody.
Mr. lierjent Petenderff (with whom was Mr. Francis in
upport el the rule) conteaded that the imposition of Made
by the plaintiff on the defendant against his sill amounted
to se result. It bed been so bell in the ease of " BAIT v.
Perkins," in which a medioal man assisted • Weals patient
to remove pert of her dress.
The Lord Chief Baran—But that was for an unlawful
purpose, sad tbsa.. er.L.feand that the defendenthed committed
• gross ace of
Mr. Serjeast—The plaintiff in this case inter-
fered with the dollendeat in the execution of his duty.
The Lord Chief Bares—Solely with the view of calling
his attention. There was no mere an await or battery than
there is a Inseam if a mas inters the hum of a friend on
whom he intends to mill on hoeing the door open.
Mr. Baron Mazda—No doubt the plaintiff did touch the
defendant, but with a view rd calling hue attention.
Mr. Francis, on the suss aide, urged that the act of the
plaintiff was ukuleld to lead to a breach of tiepeace, sad
therefore the defendant was justified in giving into cue-
tcdihe court was unanitnondy of opted= ate' the Ending
at the jag, the plaintiff had, with ible.vbefet merely dere-
Ora the_enenties et the elskodenea tdilioat any vioanao
lma boadmaSiatradia dandaat. The
piss that smautt =tiff could
not be suetaird, and themlimillbe in siring
the plaiatiff Into corded,. Its theeseer of the plain-
tiff meat therefore era;;;Ztas eale asst be discharged.
Rids discharged