The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-24 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TUESDAY, MAY 23.

Sittings in London before the I,nnt. CHIEF JeSTICE and a
Common Jury.
CURTSTIAIf v. DOBEI.L.
_ _

Mr. C. NMt ire opened the pleadings.
11 r.:4ergeant VAUGHAN said. this wan an action of assault. The
plaintiff and defendant were publicans, who met at a certain public-
house on the general Harming day, they having both been to get
their licenses renewed. The defendant was very athletic, and well
conversant with the pugilistic art, and having science and strength
combined, was more than a match for ordinary men. it wouht be
proved that, without any provocation, this man struck the plaintiff
and loorked him down. Plaintiff had no sooner got upon his leg.
than defendant again struck him. and anntinued beating hint until
he was so severely injured that the people of the house thought he
would die. He was extremely ill in consequence, and was attended
by a surgeon. The defendant had pleaded flint the gener II issue,
and secondly a justification; and he had no doubt, therefore, he
should have again to address them.
Henry Taylor recollected seeing the plaintiff and defendant on
the 7th March- at the Crown, Ilill.street, Ilasinglialhatreet. The
plaintiff put his hand on the defendant's shoulder, and said de-
fendant wet a very good fellow. but that he told a lie, and nobody
would believe him, or words to that effect. The defendant then
struck th.: plaintiff a violent blow across the bridge of the nose,
which knocked him down. Ile repeatedly struck him afterwards.
Cmatt-examined—lle could not swear to the pre• ime words, but
the plaintiff told the defendant nobody would believe him,and called
him n liar. The plaintiff keeps a public-house, called the Lamb
and Lark.

A lad, named Dennis, corroborated the testimony of this wit-
ness, and swore that he was in the room during the whole time.
3lr. Blake, a surgeon, said the plaintiff appeared to have been
very ill-used. His nose was injured; both his eyes were nearly
closed ; and the whole done side of his face was black. Ile at-
tended the plaintiff a fortnight.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
31r. sergeant TADDY, fee the defendant, said he should prove
that the plaintiff' had behaved himself in such a way as to deserve
the chastisement he got. He had abused the defendant and
threatened to knock him down stairs. He should have put in
some better claim to the titles he had assumed. As his voice had
wanted the melody of the " lark," and he was equally deficient in
the mildness of the " lamb," he ought to have foreborne bringing in
present action, like a good "Christian." (A laugh.) The Learned
Sergeant thought, in reference to the plaintiff's threat to knock the
defendant down stairs, the lines of the song would apply—
" Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love,
Rut why did you kick me down stairs ?"
The plaintiff had been ill-advised w bring the present action. He
recollected a story of a Colonel who forgot to pay some of his
honourable debts at a gambling-hmse at the west end of the town,
and the next time he presented himself in the room he was thrown
out of a second-floor window. He consulted a friend about bring-
ing an action. but he was recommended, instead of doing this, not to
play so high for the future. (A laugh.) If the plaintiff had received
some such salutary advice it would have been more beneficial to
him. One of the witnesses had said that the plaintiff tapped the
defendant on the shoulder. This tap would turn out to be some-
thing more serious; but at all events it was not always the
pleasantest thing in the world to be tapped on the shoulder, fur thi,
sort of tap was often followed up very disagreeably.
Thomas Cotterel was then called, and proved that the plaintiff
shoved the defendant violently, called him a rogue. a fool, and a
liar, and made use of the threat before referred to. He met the
witness Dennis coming down stairs.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE recalled Dennis, but be persisted
in his former story of being in the room the whole time.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN Contended that his witnesses were en.
titled to credit. His Learned Friend had extracted sonic of his
jokes from a gambling-house at the West end of the town, but h
believed the parties in this cause had little to do with fashionable
life, and, instead of playing high, played perhaps rather too low.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE summed up; and
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff--Damagts, One
Farthing.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, TUESDAY, MAI 23.

[Before the Right Hon. Lord STOWELL.]
MISCONDUCT OF A PRIZE AGENT.
Lord SrowEzr. this day proceeded to give judgment in a case,
which, he observed, was one of rather unusual occurrence in that
Court : it was a suit against the securities of a prize agent, who had
tailed to perform his duty under the following circumstances. In
the year 1810, La Lutine, and three other French vessels, were
captured by his Majesty's ship Impetuous. which was at that time
commanded by Captain Garth. One of the four vessels was cap.
tured within sight of another of his Majesty's ships, the Captain
and crew of which were of course entitled to share in the distribu.
tion of that prize. The four vessels were brought into Plymouth,
condemned to the captors in the ordinary way, and the produce
lodged in the hands of Mr. John Teed, for distribution, as prize
agent. 31r. Teed having tailed to distribute the produce of the
prizes within a year, as he was bound to do, and several unavailing
applieatiens having been made to him on the part of the captors,
the Treasurer of the Navy commenced proceedings against him in
181 S; but these proceedings proved ineffectual, as 31r. Teed was
returned Member of Parliament for Grampound. and sheltered
himself under his privilege. Proceedings were therefore delayed
until the dissolution of Parliament in 1813, when they were
again renewed, and the answer to the summons issued against Mr.
Teed was, that he had 'mated such serious losses of property,
that he was, in Oct, become bankrupt, and that the claimants n;ust
expect nothing from him. Proceedings were then instituted
against Messrs. Slade and Rowe, who had become sureties for Mr.
Teed to the amount of five thousand pounds. Mr. Slade was re:
aiding in the West Indies. and it did not appear that any separate
proceedings were taken against him ; but the suit was against the
a‘signees of the second surety, Rowe, who had become bankrupt.
The assignees objected to the payment of the bond out of Rowe.
estate, on the groudd that the bankrupt had only become security
for Teed's good conduct as a price agent, and was not answerable
for any deficiency of property which might accrue from lases in.
cuffed by turn in trade, or any other apecutition. In answer to
this objection the Court observed, that the produce of prizes placed
in an agent's hands was a sacred deposit ; that if the agent ap-
plied this produce to his own purposes, it was a deviation from his
duty ; and that as Mr. Teed had so applied the captors' money,
it was a breach of that rectitude of conduct which the sureties gua-
ranted. The assignees also objected that the sure :ea had gone on
in blind vcurity, and thought that Mr. Teed had discharged all his
enga,fements, until suddenly tilled upon to supply his deficiencies.
The Court held that this was no excuse, as every one knew that he
expo Ned himself to much hazard when he became security for an-
other : it was, an advoottiroun undertaking to become security for
the good conduct or another ; and it belonged to the sureties to
look to the due execution of an office which affirded great temp.
tattoos to the misapplication of money. puler all the circum-
stances, the Court pronounced the bond entered into by the secu-
rities forfeited, and that the amount chimed by the captors. which
was 2,6441. 6s. /Id. should be considered a claim on the estate of
Rowe.