The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-14 00:00:00

ELECTION RIOT.

..... _
William Leidy. Knight, and John Au fell, were in-
djcted for riotously assembling with other persons, at Frtmie.SA.
%sod. in this county. and assaulting Welter Long, the tithing-
nam of the parish, in the execution of his duty.
Dam CY Noted, that this caw arose out of the late election
tar Smiuset. At that time Mr. Il unt came. forwanl as a candidate,
sad having frequently harangu:d the people of Frome, a very
strorg feeling WAS excited in that town in his favour. He was In
cis habit of stealing out epithets of abuse against all persons and
(loses. but his hostility was directed most especially against the
Itorneys. Mr. Hunt had given them the name of bud-ritarks, and at
etis period they were known by no other name amongst the lower
claims in Frame, who conceived that all their troubles had nriecn
i7An tutornies. whom Mr. Hunt acquainted them were their worst
enemies. This feeling prevailed so strongly at Frome, that during
the. continuance of the election no attorney could appear in the
streets without being insultul and assailed with cries of " no land.
sliari,s.— The turbulent spirit which prevailed, however, (lid sot
confine itself to words, but manifested itself in a wore violent and
ktalsarful manner. The town of Fronie, it would seem, was in a
..tgas cf. et... 1. inued Cut f:oni the first visit of Mr. Hunt. At one

period it became so intolerable, that a number of the respectable in-
habitants were sworn Ina.' special constables, in order to preserve
the peace of the town. It was on the 17th June the occurrence
took place whirls led to the pretent indictment. Mr. William
Messner, a respectable solicitor, residing at Frome, had some
quarrel with Mr. Hunt, and this, joined with his being an attor-
ney, rendered him peculiarly obnoxious to die populace. On the
evening in question lie was approaching his own house, when he
was set upon by a large mob, who pelted him with stones. Hap-
pily lie got home in safety, but not before he had noticed the pa-
wner Lesly, who appeared very active in the riot, and said to Mr.
Alelmi!er, "If you come here again you shall get it." In the
evening of the same day a mob of nearly 400 persons assembled
in the market-place. and Walter Long, the tithing-man of the
parish, went amongst them with his coostable's staff, and endea-
voured to disperse them ; out instead of dispersing. they assailed
him with atones and hisses. The three prisoners would be proved
to have assisted in this riot, and if they should, he submitted that
they ought to be punished, and was assurred the Jury would do
Weir duty by finding them guilty.
George 3lersiter, sworn—ls a solicitor; lives at Frome. On the
17th Jane was passing near the market-place, and observed a mob
of about 3410 persona surrounding and hooting eta few respects! le
persons. It was about eight o'clock in the evening. Witness was
passim: through Cork-street approaching his own house. A de-
tachment of about one hundred persona came towards witness from
the market-place.
At tit is period Me. Justice liiTTLEDAI.V. interposed, and ob-
*emit, that as this riot had only arisen out of en electioneering dis-
pute, and had in it nothing of a very serious character as affected
the peace of the country, lie would recommend that the prisoners
should be allowed to withdraw their plea of Not Huilty, and to
plead Guilty, and that the prosecution should be alsindotted, upon
the prisoners entering into their own recegniaances bOl. to keep the
peace for twelve months.
The Counsel for the prosecution unhesitatingly concurred in the
propri ty of his Lordship's suggestion, and upon entering into their
recognizance% and raying a timid la. each, the prisoners were
discharged.

CIVIL SIDE.
[Before Mr. Justice 6 /Anis."
ENGLAND V. LYE.
Mr. Sergeant WI rim (with whom was Mr. BUMP.IIO, stated that
in this case the plaintiff was a farmer, living near Wait•Lantbrook,
and the defendant, a butcher, residing in the tame place. The
action was brought to recover compensation in damages for an in.
jury of a most aggravated description. The plaintiff alleged that
the defendant had him apprehended and taken before a Magistrate,
and then rn ifk a charge of felony against hint falsely and mali-
ciously, and without sufficient or even probable cruse. The cir-
cumstances under which this charge was made agai tst the plain-
tiff were as follow:—In June, lttli, the defendant was pass.
ing the road at New Cross, in the parish of Kingsbury Episcopti,
with a cart I 'den with pork. He stopped at the house of a black•
smith there to sell his pork. at which house the plaintiff was. Lye
asked him if he would purchase any of the pork, to which England
replied that lie did not want any. Afterwards, however, he in-
' gutted the price of the pork, and upon examining it he altered his
resolution, mid determined to buy eotne. Lye went from his cart,
and whilst he was absent, plaintiff selected two pieces of the pork,
which he took with him, desiring the blacksmith's wife to acquaint
Lye when lie returned that he (England) had taken two pieces of
the pork, and that Lye might come down to his holm to ace the
meat weighed, and receive his money. It would be proved that
the blackeinith's wife communicated this message to the defendant,
but it would appear that lie and England had previously had
some dispute, and the latter found it necessary to institute legal
proceedings against the defendant, who seemed to retain a remem-
brance of the circuinstance'when he made this vindictive and mali-
cious charge against England. The defendant had actually to'd
A person who would be produced, that England had rag. out of
him, and that he would row have something back. It was in pur-
suance of this threat, no doubt, that he had charged England be-
fore a Magistrate, with stealing his pork. There was no felony
committed by the plaintiff; the Jury would perceive, nor were
there any grounds for charging him with such offence. In the
absence of any probable grounds, combined with the expression he
had used, lie suhmitted it was not WO much to say, that the
defendant bad charged the plaintiff from malignant motives. If
the evidence produced supported the fact, and that the Jury should
come to this conclusion, he was convinced they would award da-
mages commensurafe to the nature of the injury wantonly inflicted
on the feeiloge and character of the plaintiff.
Witnesses were then called, and fully supported the statement
of plaintiff'S' Counsel.
Mr. ERSKINE, for the defendant, pointed the attention of the
Jury to the warrant issued by the Nlagistiate for the apprehension
or Englend. Ile contended that it contained no charge of felony.
It simply charged England with having taken the pork, which con-
fessedly he bad done. The charge of felony was suggested by the
plaintiff himself, and was mentioned in the declaration for the
purpose of aggravating the damages, and by this means compas-
sing the ruin of the defendant. The action was trifling in its
nature, and most oppressive and malignant in its intention. Ile
therefore trusted that it the Jury found a verdict, the damages
would be very moderate indeed, as his client was a very poor man,
and must be ruined by heavy damages.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages M.
AN]) OTHERS T. BARRETT•
Mr. C. TAU Nrom stated, that the plaintiffs were assignees of
Mr. Wm. Mills, who had carried on business extensively at Bath
as an oil-merchant. The defendant was also a merchant, residing
in London. The present action was brought to recover the value
of ten casks of oil, which the bankrupt had purchased from the de.
fentltun, and which were actually delivered by the latter at the
Steel-yard IVherf, London. After the delivery, however, Barrett,
it would seem, learned that Mills was becoming embarrassed in his
circumstances, and in order to repossess himself of his goods, he
used the right of stoppage in transit's over them. These were the
simple facts of the cause, affd these facts being proved, the Jury were
bound to act upon the sound legal principle that the last per-
son who sold to a bankrupt was not to be placed in a better situa-
tion titan any of his other creditors, but that'll the effects of a bank-
rupt were to be divided equally amongst them. In accordance with
this prieciple, the assignees, suing fur the benefit of the creditors
generally, felt it their duty to bring the present action.
William Mills, the bankrupt, was then placed in the witness
box, and was about to be sworn, when Mr. Sergeant ‘Vilde, who
was for the defendant, objected, to his competency as a witness,
lie having been convicted of a conspiracy to keep nut of the way a
witness who was bound to appear against him (Mills) on a prose-
cution fur smuggling.
After much argument in support of as well as. against the ob-
jection, the Learned Judge decided that the conviction referred to
renderest Mills an incompetent witness; however, he would give
the plaintiffs leave to move the Court above on die point.
Plaintiffs' Counsel then stated, that Mills's evidence was so es-
sential to support the case, that they could not hope to succeed
witheut it. They thereline consented that the plaintiff should be
nonsuited.

ACTION FOR SEDUCTION.
EVANS V. IIIII.PIN.

This was nn action brought by a father to recover compensation
10 damages for the injury sustained in the lose of his daughter's
services, through her seduction by the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE (with whom were Mr. F. C. WYLLIAMS
and Mr. Easel wet) stated the case. Ile commenced by observing.
that in the great variety of cases which it was the ditty of conrwel
to lay before a Jury, it did frequently happen that the instructions
they received were not borne out by the evidence, and that griev-
ances, represented as of a very aggravated character, were only
proved to have been grievances in statement. He had no reason
tiprin earth to doubt the accuracy of the instructions whinnied to
him is the present instance, and he well knew that the interests of
as client were never advanced by overcharging a statement. The
Jury were already aware that this was an action brought by a father
to recover compensation for the seduction of his daughter, and how.
' ever well disposed he might be to refrain from giving any over-
charged colouring to his statement, if he could state such a case
without feeling, he must be indeed insensible. Ile could not
help feeling how such an occurrence as the seduction of a
daughter must affect a father, when it was followed by the
birth of • child, in whose innocent face the father could read
nothing but the shame of another branch of his family, when that I
new relation, which should be the source of hope, consolation, and
happiness, is only the cause of agony and distress, and in the fea-
tures of the little one lie sees nothing but the disgrace of another
dearer and nearer relative. The plaintiff, Evans, was the father of
other daughters. Ile had admitted into his house the defendant, I
who had arrived at a sufficient time of life to have a control over
I himself. That defendant destroyed his happiness. The plaintiff
I was an innkeeper in the town of 13ridgewater. The defendant was
at a time of life when confidence might be reposed in him. Ile
stood with an unimpeachable character, and his station in life and
reputation proved his tishess to be received in the character in which
he came to the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff' hod looked
forward to an union between his daughter and the defendant as a
source of happiness to all parties. The prospect was now altered.
The defendant had reduced the daughter .o a state its which she
had become an object of shame and pity to all who were acquainted
with her. Ile was utterly ignorant of any one fact which the de-
fendant could bring forward in extenuation of his conduct. He
slid not know whether lie meant to say that lie -vas not old enough to
haveacquired a control over his passions, or that he had visited at the
plaintiff's house as an honourable suitor and was trusted, or that
the plaintiff dill not watch him like a thief in his house..
It would be proved that the plaintiff's family conducted them-
selves respectably, and in a manner suitable to their situation in
lire. The daughters assisted the father and mother in the conduct
of their estaleislinient. Several coaches called at the plaintiff".
house, some of them late at night, anti this circumstance would
give the defendant au opportunity of proving that the plaintiff'
sometimes permitted his daughters to stay up when he and his wife,
who were ohl, retired to bed. But lie challenged the defendant to
prove that either of those young ladies were ever suffered by their
parents to remain up without some other member of the family.
The Jury should decide, therefore. whether a man should treat
every one who conies as a suitor to his daughter as a villain. The
defendant came as a suitor; lie seduced the plaintiff's daughter
to grata:), his desires ; blic did so, became pregnant, and was de.
serted. Ile hoped the Jury were parents and When ; he trusted
their own feelings would prompt them 'to do justice, when the
-honour and the feelings of a parent and a foler tvere concerned.
Unless th• defendant could shake nut some distinct subject of pal.
li•tton, lie deribttel not that the plaintiff would not be tent home with
his shame incensed, but that the verdict of the Jury would show not
only how they estimated itse conduct of the defendant, but also how
much they sympat)tised with the father. Ile should tall the unhappy
young woman whose misfortunes were the cause of this action.
! lie had never seen her, hut he knew his client's case depended in a
grist areaaure on site: she aaii. It was unfortunate tor this yeung