The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-03-18 00:00:00

ROME CIRCUIT.

SURREY ASSIZES, KIXOSTOX, Mattes 17.
CIVIL SIDE.
IYILLIAMS V. COOKE AND
, This was an action of trespass for dispossessing the plaintiff of
I the Surrey Thyme. The defendants pit stint the general issue.
' Mr. 31AIIRTATT, MR. OVIINET, And Mr. Cosevet conducted
the plaintiff's cue, and Mr. ADOLP:II79 and Mr. CHITTY the
defendants'.
The case proved i t evidence was this r—the plaintiff, Mr. AVil-
liams, had been tenant to Mr. West of the Surrey Theatre, at
a rent of 1,2001. per annum. In the month of December DOS, the
defendants, Mr. Cooke, and. Mr. Mitchell, sued out a commission
of bankrupt against him. and on the Bth of that month the defend-
ants, one of whom was flambee, the messenger, end Mr. Niblett,
the solicitor to the commission, together with several other persons,
went to the theatre in the evening before the house opened and took
possession. At that time the Sheriff was also in possession under
en execution far 1.V.20 at the suit of the plaintira mother. An
larrangement then took place, by which it was egretd that the
ferrear.ces at the theatre should go on, a person being appointed at
the insiance of the defendants, to overlook the money takers, end
keep an rcesamt of the receipts. Next day some printed hand-
bills were posted In St. Deorge's Fields, and at the theatre, an-
nouncing that the house was closed until a day therein mentioned ;
but in the course of the same day most of them were loin down or
covered over with fresh bills. It did not appear at whose instance
this advertisement was made. No stop to the performances took
place. On 15th Dec.thecomntisslon against plalntiffwas superseded
by the Lord Chancellor, and on that day the defendants, who had
retained possession till then, restored it to the plaintiff. In the in.
terval there had been performances every night at the theatre.
Under these cireamstances the present action was brought. It was
alleged that the commission had beeff sued out against the elaintiff
with knowledge on the part of the defendants that it could not be
sustained ; that their object in doing this was to ruin the plaintiff;
and that they had acted under the sinister influence of some of the
plaintiffs enemies. Of these allegations, however, there wrs no
proof. The plaintiff was described in the proceedings under the
commission as a vintner of the Old Bailey, but no evidence was
given of trading, petitioning creditor's debt, or alleged act of bank-
ruptcy. It appeared on the crosa.enamination of the plaintiff's
wimesees, that about the period of the alleged bankruptcy, he was
ht embarrassed circumstances, and about that period was not
always visible at the theatre. The effect of the proceedings taken
against the plaintiff; was to bring his creditors upon him, who had
thrown him into the Fleet prison, a here he is now confined as a
prisoner for debt. The defendants had paid the costa of supersed-
ing the commission.
Mr. ADOLPH us addressed the Jury in mitigation of damages,
and contended that there was no pretence for this action. There
was no proof of any serious injury sustained by the plaintiff. The
defendants had acted in good faith and under the advice of their
Solicitor, who had been of opinion that the commission of bank-
ruptcy was sustainable. A verdict for a shilling would, he sub-
muted, amply satisfy the justice of the ease.
No witnesses were called in defence.
The LOUD CHIEF Swim,/ summed up the case for the Jury.
The Jury found their verdict foe the plairailf—Damages 1001.

WILLIAMS v. DELAFORCE AND OTHERS.
This was an action on the case by the same plaintiff, against the
defendants. for damage done to the scenery of the Surrey theatre,
whilst the latter was tenant thereof to the plaintiff.
Mr. Marryatt, Mr. Gurney, and Sir. Chitty conducted the plain-
tiff's ease ; and Mr. Sergeant Taddy and Mr. Comyn the defend-
awe'.
It appeared, that in consequence of the plaintiff's embarrass-
ments, after the transaction mentioned in the last case. he found it
necessary to underlet the theatre to the defendants, Messrs. Dela.
force, Micklethwaite, and St. Old, at thirty pounds a week. An
agreement was entered into in September, WM, with the defend-
ants, on those terms; and they conducted the business of the theatre
t:'r a considerable time. The plain tiff wilting to have the pos-
session again, terminated the tenancy by a notice. The defendants
wished still to retain possession, but at length gave it up. When
the plaintiff returned to the theatre he discovered that much of the
scenery was wilfully damaged. A great many of the side scenes,
which were painted in water colours, were washed over with a
brush, and rendered useless. This was alleged to have been dons
wilfully. It was alleged, that in consequence of this injury, the
plaintiff' was put to great expense and delay before he could open
the theatre to the public. 11'itnesses were called to prove the esti-
mate of damage.
The Jury, under the Learned Judge's direction, found their Ter.
- . .
50/.

diet for ttfelitintiff—Damages os. .
LOVELL V. ELDER AND, OTHERS.
This wu an action of assault and battery. Plea the general
lisle.
Mr. GURNEY and Mr. Comvx conducted the plaintiff's case,
and Mr. KaIIRYATT and Mr. Sergeant Laws:s the defence.
The plaintiff is a painter and glazier, of Bow-lane, Cheapside.
On Sunday the 16th of January, last year. the plaintiff and a friend
having been to witness a foot-race, stopped at the Black Horse pub-
lic-house at Brixton, and called for a pint of beer. They were
served by Berry the landlurd, and the money was put upon the
hatch door. Atter drinking the beer they quitted and were walk-
ing away, when they were pursued by Elden and Berry. The
former collared the plaintiff, and charged him with having gone off
without paying for the beer. The term swindler was applied to
him, and Berry shoved against and taxed him with haying intended
to cheat him of the pint of beer. The plaintiff was brought back
and detained shout ten minutes. Under these circumstances the
action was brough..
Several witnesses were called in defence, to prove, first, that
the plaintiff had not, in point of fact, paid for the beer; second,
that no offensive language had been used by the defendants ; and
third, that no assault whatever had been committed.
The evidence on both sides went to the Jury, and they found
their verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Is.
CROWN SIDE.
William Cherry 'was indicted for assaulting and violently
abusing Susannah Nightingale, against her will, on the 21st of
December. at Hotity.
Mr. THESSIO en conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Anol.-
len era the defence.

The prnsecutrix was a young woman, of 21, and was servant
to Ale Wright, a farmer at Charlwood, where her father was a
labourer. On the 27th of December last, she went to visit her
sister, who was in the service of 31r. Turner, a gentleman residing
at Ilorsehill, in the parish of Horley. The prisoner, who is about
thirty-two years of age, also lived as groom in Mr. Turner's family.
The prosecrutrix's sister pressed her to stay dinner. During dinner
the prisoner, who. sat at the name table, inquired of the girl which
way she proposed to go home. S'ae told him by the turnpike-road.
He squeezed her hard. She desired him to desist. About 5 o'clock
is the evening she quitted Mr. Turner's house for the purpose d
going home. It was raining, and the evening wen dusky. When
she got into the mad, the prisoner, who had been waiting in as
adjoining lane, came up to her, and offered to point her out a
shorter way home across the fields, and to accompany her. She,
however, said she was not afraid to go home alone. He oftbred to
carry her umbrella; she declined, but he took it from her. They
walked together for about half a mile. until they came to • mile.
atone, when the prisoner laid hold of her, and intimated that he
had at improper object in view, and that he must effect his pur.
pose before they parted. She told him he should do no such
thing. He then pushed her against a mile-stone, and conducted
himself in a manner not proper to mention. After pulling of
his great coat he tbrew her down, and committed the injury corn-
plained of. She seresnied loudly and called for help during the
struggle. Per voice might have been heard half a mile ofr. The
prisoner haying effected his purpose, induced her to walk • little
way with him. Through fear of further violence she laid hold of
his arm. When she got to the house of a Mr. Jordan, about half
a mile off. she told the latter what had happened, when Mr.
Jordan offered to give her protection for the night, which she
declined, as she had no permission from her mistress to
stay out all night. He then sent his son with her part of the
way to her father's house. When she got home she immediately
told her father and mother of the violence she had suffered, and
similar complaint was matte to her sister. In two days afterwasda
she went before a Magistrate, and the prisoner, who had not slis
aconded, was immediately taken up. Her father and a neighbest
or two had gone to the prisoner in the interval, but what passed es
that occasion she did not know. The girl told her story in an art.
less and apparently credible manner. hhe had an impediment In
her speech. Jordan and Nightingale, the girl's father, were
called to corroborate her in her testimony as to her subsequent
conduct. The girl herself, on lice Qom-examination, solemnly
denied certain conversations alleged to have paired betwees
bet and two persons named Tulet and wife, in which she
was supposed to have acquitted the prisoner of violence,
The girl's father, and the witness Jordan, were cross-examined,
for the purpose of showing that the former was willing to
compromise the matter with the prisoner upon payment of
money. The father admitted that he had consulted his master,
31r. Marsh, upon the subject, and consented to abide by what be
Proposed to do in the business. He denied that he had authorised
31r. Marsh to take a sum of money, but he admitted his supposi-
tion that the matter might end in that way. His daughter never
authorised him to compromise the charge for money, nor did she
know what Mr. Marsh was to do in the business'. In their way to
the house of the prisoner's master they met the prisoner, and he
was asked whether he had not ill used the prnsecutrix in the man-
lier she had complained ? He admitted that he had walked with
fey but that lie had not misused her. He salted the father it he
Seuld give him change for a sovereign. The father declined having
say thing to say to him, and proceeded with Mr. Marsh and Jor.
dan to the house of Mr. Turner. who being then engaged could
OK attend to the matter. The father also denied on his cross-ex-
smination that he had said to Mr. Turner's cook that he would
eampromite the matter for money. He admitted he was ready to
abide by what Mr. Marsh should do in the business; but his
daughter was not privy to what was proposed, nor had she ever
given her content to take money.
The prisoner in his defence said, that what had taken place be-
tween him and the i.rosecutrin was not against her will.
31r. Turner was called to prove that upoo hearing what the pri.
Boner was charged with he paid him his sages, and desired him to
quit his place ; but the prisoner chose to stay. The prisoner was
his groom, and he bore a good character.
The man named Tulet, above-mentioned, was called to contra-
dict the prosecutrix, and he swore that in conversation with hint
and his wile the day after, she denied that any violence had been
used towards her by the prisoner.
The prosecutris interposed, and in the most earnest manner said
the witness had taken • false oath ; and that no such conversation
as that mentioned by him had ever taken place.
Anne Wilkinson, Mr. Turner's cock, was called to contradict