The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-31 00:00:00

clear, whatever reliance might be placed on the clause of the new
Act of Parliament, that the conveyance of Walker to the deftm-
dant must have been null and void. The law had enacted that
property in a vessel could pass only by deed • and no one would
argue that, after an act of bankruptcy had been committed, the
bankrupt could make a valid deed.
111 r. Justice Panic said, that besides agreeing with Mr. Scar-
lett in what he had said, on the subject of the conveyance, he had
no difficulty In giving his opinion, that the new Act of Parliament
had, in the particular clause alluded to, only consolidated the
former4ets, and that, therefore, the claw e did not protects creditor,
if a fraudulent preference were shewn in the payment of 'his debt.
Now, a voluntary preference war, in law, a fraudulent preference,
and that a voluntary preference had been given by Walker to the
defendant, no one who had heard the evidence could doubt.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs.
ATKINSON V. MERTON.
This was an action brought to recover damages from the de-
fendant, for haling blocked up and obstructed the ancient lights of

the plaintiff
Mr. SCARLETT stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff, he
observed, was a very respectable man, residing in Newcastle, and
had brought this action for a most wanton attempt to obstruct the
lights of a building in his possession. In the year 11103 Mr. At-
kinson had purchased, from ajperson of the name of Smith, a piece
of ground, on which he had erected a warehouse. Mr. Smith had
reserved a piece of ground near Mr. Atkinson. and had built
thereon a malt-house. In the conveyance of the land to Mr. At-
kitties!), a special covenant had been entered into, by which
Mr. A tkineon had been licensed to open any windows towards the
property of Mr. Smith, provided that none were opened at a less
I distance thanillff feet from the ground. In !811 Mr. Smith had
died, and in 18111„ the defendant, Mr. Merton, had purchased
the premises previously occupied by Smith. In the March of the
present year the defendant had proceeded to erect 'a building cicse
to 11r. Atkinson's warehouse, by which lie had entirely blocked up
three of the windows of the warehouse.
The case having been proved, as stated,
31r. Wteetasis (with whom wits Alr. BROUGHAM and Mr.
ARCIIIIIALD) admitted that he had no answer to the action. The
plaintiff, they had been told, was a respectable man, and he (Mr.
W.) believed that the plaintiff was something more than respect-
able, for it was said that he was a relation of the Lord Chancellor.
Now, the defendant not having the benefit of such a relationship,
could not be expected to know as much law as the plaintiff; and he
had, therefore, fallen into the mistake of imagining that he had
a right tcr build on his own ground as high as he pleased.
Verdict for the plaintiff-Damages Is.
MERTON v. ATKINSON.
This action arose out of the Mecums:ince:l detailed in the last.
The parties changed places on the record, and Mr. Merton sought
a compensation in damages for a violent assault and battery, al-
leged to have been committed by Mr. Atkisson.
3lr. WiI.I.IAMS addressed the Jury for the plaintiff—The Jury
had now to decide what damages were to be paid by the gentle-
man, who In the last cause had been described as so highly re-
spectable. for an aggravated assault. The plaintiff in this cause
had, as they had already heard, conceived the notion that he
might build as he pleased on his own land, and had accordingly
been employed in raising the building, of which in the last cause
they had heard so much. On the 21th March last, the defendant
had felt his anger rise at viewing the progress of the building in
question, and he had gone on the plaintiff's premises, as it after-
wards turned our, for die purpose of remonstrating with him. Mr.
Atkinson explained to the plaintiff that he had no right to build
beyond a certain height. Now, he ( Mr. Williams) would observe,
that although Isis client had certainly been mistaken in sup posing
that he might build as high as he pleased lel. that he imae
gined the Jury would teach Mr. Atkinson, that because his
own lights had been stopped up, he had no right to en-
deavour to poke out a new light in the side of Mr. Mer-
ton. (A laugh.) Well, after some conversation on the subject, the
plaintiff had told the defendant that he would build, if he could,
as high as die sky. Mere the patience of Mr. Atkinson came to a
close, and putting himself in military attitude, as though be were
charging with the bayonet, he made a plunge with his umbrella at
the side of the plaintiff, and with all his force rubbed the umbrella
against the plaintiff's side. (A laugh.) They would learn that the
skin had been rubbed off, that the services of a surgeon had been
rendered necessary, and that Mr. Merton had been obliged to lose a
good deal of blood and to take a good deal of physic. Such was
the injury complained of, and the Jury would give a reasonable
compensation in damages.
Henry Merton sworn—l am a son of the plaintiff'. I was, on
Good Friday last, on the spot where my father was building. Mr.
Atkinson came on the premises • and asked George Gib on if my
father was there. George Gibson! pointed out my father to Mr.
Atkinson. 31r. Atkinson asked my father how high he intended
to carry the building. My father said, if lie could find money he
would carry it as high as the sky. (A laugJ). Mr. Atkinson said,
" Don't you know when I bought my property from Mr. Smith ;
it was agreed that no person was to build higher than 16 feet ?"
My father said, that lilt. Smith was now dead, and the property
had passed into other hands. 31r. Atkinson said, " 1 am not dead.
My father repeated that he would build on his own ground, as
high as he thought proper. Mr. Atkinson said, " You d—d
rascal, I'll knock it down as fast as you build It up." Mr. Atkin.
son had an umbrella in his hand, which lie held as if charging with
a bayonet, and let drive at my fatherr's side. This was a little
after one o'clock. My father went home immediately. I saw my
father's side on the Sunday following. There was a red mark about
three inches long and the skin was rather ruffled. 31y father was
very 111 next day.
Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT—I dare say Mr. Atkinson
is 80 years of age. I did not see if his hand shaked. lily fattier is
not yet fifty.
Well, when you saw your father in such danger, of course you
went to his assistance P—No.
V. when you saw him drilled in the manner you have de-
scribed, did you not help Man 7—No, it came on too soon.
Now, as to this mark, three inches long, was it not such a mark
as is made by a person scratching himself 7—No.
Was it not like the mark of a whip?—No.
Have you not got a whip in the house ?—No.
Then what does your mother use? (A laugh.}—Sbe uses a stick
to the children.
Does she never try the stick on any one else 7-1 dare say she
never has occasion to use it on any one else.
Two other witnesses were called to prove the assault,but ore could
not swear that the umbrella ever touched the plaintiff; and the other
was of opinion that it did not.
11r. Fife, • surgeon, was called to attend the plaintiff on the
Sunday day after the accident. The plaintiff complained of pain on
the right aide. Witness did not recollect whether there was any
mark. Witness bled the plaintiff'. Witness's bill for attendance
and medicine amounted to 21. 13. Supposing a blow to have been
given on the plaintiff's side, it would have produced the symptoms
that plaintiff observed.
Mr. SCARLET.—And supposing an umbrella to have been
pointed at the plaintiff without reaching him, would that have
produced the symptoms. (A laugh.)—No.
Mr. SCARLETT briefly addressed the Jury. Ile admitted that
the plaintiff must have a verdict, but thought that a fartbiug da-
mages would satisfy the justice of the case.
31r. Justice PARK, ill Summing up the case, told the Jury, that
during an experience of forty years, he had never known so trum-
pery an action.
The Jury found a verdict for the elaintiff—Damages, One
Farthing. _