The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, SAlL:sum', JCNE 17.

WILLIAMS V. LEVY AND ANOTHER.

This was an action of trespass, fur breaking and entering the
plaintiff's dwelling.house,forcing doors and locks, making a great
noise, and disturbing the plaintiff in the quiet possession thereof:
The defendant, who was a Sheriff's officer, pleaded first, not
guilty ; second, that he had entered the plaintiff's house, for the
purpose of arresting a gentleman named Francis Macirone. residing
therein, unon a plrtrier copies, at the suit of the other defendant,
William 31• Neil, the yourtger ; and third, that he had entered the
house with the plaintiff's leave and license. fly the plaintiff's re-
plication to the second and third pleas respectively, she denied the
existence of any such writ, at the suit of William N‘Ned, the
youreger, as stated in the plea ; second, she denied the leave and
license pleaded, and averred that Levy committed the trespass of
his own wrong. On these pleas issues were joined. The defend-
ant aPNiel pleaded the general issue only.
Mr. SCAR I.RTT (with whom was Mr. Corr.'s') stated the case.
The plaintiff • was a respectable widow lady, and complained in
this action of an invasion of the sanctity of her dwelling, under
circumstances of great aggravation. In the month of February.
last year, the plaintiff' was the occupier of a house, No. fit, Upper
Berkeley.street, Portman-square, where she resided with her two
daughters. Though a lady of unquestion dale respectability, yet she
was not so affluent as to be able to keep s handsome house without
letting off a part of it, and accordingly she was in the habit of left' tg
some of her apartments to families of rank and fashion, s to
wished for the accommodation of lodgings. Undoubtedly tree
plaintiff' was acquainted with Mr. alseirone, the gentleman
named in the pleadings, who had formerly lodged in her house.
Some yeses since 31r. 3lneirone had purchased a carriage of
31r. 51'Neil, the father of the defendant of that name, and paid
for it by a draft upon a person named Curry. who, as his agent,
was possessed of some of his money. Mr. alacirone went abroad,
and on his return he happened to call upon Mr. APNeil, the
elder, to know whether the draft had been publ, and then he was
informed. for the first time, that it had not been honoured.—
Upon which, Mr. Macirone, though not liable in point of laver
immediately promised to pay the money in a few osonths The
money hail been since paid ; but before the time promised had ar-
rived, Mr. 31• Neil, the elder, thought proper to issue a writ against
Mr. Macirone. It seemed that some years since that gentleman
had lodged in the plaintiff's house, but, at the time of the tran-
saction in question, he lived at quite another part of the town, and
only now and then called upon the plaintiff, as an acquaintance.
Presuming, probably, upon some information received, that Mr.
Macirone still lodged in the plaintiff". honse. Mr. bevy, his son,
and Mr. the younger, went to the plaintiff's house. with
a writ to arrest him, as early as seven in the morning of the 18th
of February, last year, before the family were up. They knocked
at the door, and inquired for Mr. Macirone. The plaintiff
told them that the gentleman did not live there. Not satisfied,
with this answer, they pushed into the house with great violence.
and, after searching the lower apartments, they forced their
way up to the bedrooms, tiling the most offensive language.
Finding one of the bedroom doors locked,-then pusheel against it
with great violence. In this room one of the plaintiff's dearth-
tees slept, with her little niece. Two of the el£fendarissorent
down. thteatening ro get a poker to break open the door. Alia!
Williams. roused frem her sleep by the noise, rose in great Maki,
and opened the door to ascertain what was the nastier. The defend-
ant, bevy's son, rushed past her with great rudeness. and opening
her bed. dragged the clothes off Not finding the object of his
search, he returned down stairs, and telling the defendants that Mr.
Macirone was not in the house, they were satisfied, and quitted the
premises. Under these circumstances the plaintiff brought this
action, and sought st the hands of the Jury a liberal compensation
for this outrageous violence. The defendants had received notice
that the person whom they were in search of was not in the house.
After this notice they entered at their peril, and conducted them-
selves in a manner which nothing could justify towards unprotected
females. The Jury would any what damages they would give
against such ruffians, for invading a respectable lady's house, at SO
unseasonable an hour of the morning, and conducting themselves
in the manner he had stated. All that the Jury would have to do
would be, to assess damages ; for it would be impossible for
Mr. Levy to sustain his special Om of justification. inasmuch as
the writ against Mr. Macirone was sued out at the instance of Mr.
aPNeil, sen. and not of Mr. ISPNeiI the younger, as pleaded.
Evidence was called to support this statement ; after which
The LORD CHIEF JUST tc E told the Jury, that the only ques-
tion for them was, as to the amount of damages. A sheriff's officer
had a right to go into a house, the door of which is open, if' lie rea-
sonably suspects that his prison, r is etere concealed ; but he had
no right to molest the inmates of the house, still less to threaten to
break open the door of a lady's bed.rnom. To say the least of it,
the defendants had behaved very indeccrously in this respect. The
Jury, however, in awarding damages; would not lose sight of tem-
perance and moderation.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, One Hundred
Pounds.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, SATURDAY, JUNIS 17•

INACHEATH T. COOKE AND OTHERS.

This was an action for an assault and battery. The plaintiff had
been in business as a jeweller, at Ryder's-court, Leicester-square,
and had become a bankrupt. The defendants had been appointed
assignees under his commission, and went to the plaintiff's house
to compel him to quit it, as he had refused to give it up in obedience
to the notice which had been served on him. The question was,
whether in doing this the assignees had struck the plaintiff?
Three witnesses for the plaintiff swore that they had struck hint
repeatedly over both the head and body, while all the messengers
to the commission, two parish constables, a streetkeeper, and a
stranger. denied that any blow had been struck on either side.
In the course of the cause, a question arose as to the validity of
the commission under which the assignees defended the action, and
that question principally related to the manner in which the peti-
tioning creditor's debt had been proved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the new statute was not quite
so clear as it ought to be, anti he would not decide the question at
present. In order, however, to put the whole matter at rest, in a
way as little expensive as possible, he should desire the Jury to
find a verdict for the plaintiff, expressing, at the same time, their
opinion, whether, supposing the assignees to be justified in law,
they had, in fact, used any unnecessary violence. As they found
their verdict on that point, the objection to the commission would
be disposed of; and he should reserve leave for the defendants to
move to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that they were justified as
assignees in expelling the plaintiff from the house.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, but declared that in
their belief no unnecessary violence had been used; and they accord-
ingly gave only One Farthing as damages. The verdict was then
entered for that sum, subject to the motion for a nonsuit.