The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-10 00:00:00

was in Court on a writ of Habeas Coipus, should stand committed
to the Fleet Prison for a contempt of Vourt, incurred in consequence
of the nompayment of a ALP!! of 1:11. costa, purivaut to an order
made under the authority of his Honour.
The defendant, who stood on the flour of the Court, and was an
elderly gentleman, of respectahie appearance, opposed the motion,
on the ground that he had been scandalously treated by the opposing
parties. The attorney, plaintiff' and bar were united in *conspi-
racy against him.
The Vice. Cit Atecti.Lon—if there exists good grould for com-
plaint against any of the parties in this cause, the Court a ill attend
to an application properly made upon the subject, and redress any
actual wrong* which, on examination, may appear to have been
sas.sined. For the present the defendant must stand committed to
the Fleet Prison for a contempt in non.payment of costs, in pursu-
ance of an order of the Court.
The defendant was then removed in custody of the officer in at.
tendance.

- -
COURT Ol KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL,
FRIDAY, DEc.9.

Sittings at Prins, byl.se Pie Loup Carter JUSTICZ and
Common Jurors.
TOCOCICE s, MOOSE.
This was an action to recover damages for an assault committed
on the plaintiff by the order of the defendant.
Mr. AltillAM opened the pleadings, which set forth that the
plaintiff had, by the defendant's order, been assaulted by a con.
stable by him falsely kept in imprisonment, and carried before the
Magistrates on a false charge of imprisonment, &e.
The Loan CHIE, JU,TICE said, that the special pleader who
I drew the &clan: ion had shown very bad taste in throwing such a
multitude of reedicssi charges of aggravation into it, when the gra-
Yemen of the complaint was merely an assault.
Mr. Biseibottlas stated the rase to the jury. It appeared that
the parties to this action reside in the City-road, that they are rela-
tions, jointly occupying the same house, that there had been some
family disputes between them, that the plaintiff being about to re-
move had attempted to take away a stove and some other trifling
articles which the defendant claimed as hie property, that a sctifill,
ensued. that the defendant sent for a hesdborough to take the
plaintiff into custody on a charge of felony, and that on the head-
borough corning for ibis purpose the plaintiff voluntarily offered to
go with bhn to Worship-street, whi•her they went accordingly,
wlizn the charge was dismissed. This was the assault for which
the_ present actton was brought.
Mr. SC•IILETT, for the defendant, contended that in law this
was no assault, insammit as the plaintiff had, of his own uccird,
offered ro go to Woishlp-street with the heralborough.
The Loan CHI,/ JUSTICE. In summing up. said that he did
not agree with the doctrine laid down by Mr. Searlett. The plain.'
tiff's offering to go with the constable made no difference. lithe
constable had been sent for to take him into custody, and Pocoeke,
to prevent bands being !aid upon him, offered voluntarily to go.
this was unquestionably an assault, and such a constraint of his li-
berty as to consfitute a false imprisonment. The only question,
therefore, which the Jury had to consider was, whether these things
had really occurred. Three witnesses had been coiled who proved
that they did take place, and no witnesses hail been called to dl.-
prove their testimony. lithe Jury thought that they were entitled
to crenit, they would find for the plaintiff; with such damages as
they thought reasonable.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the olaintiff—Da.
huge', One Farthing.

WHITTINGTON V. GLADWIN.
This was an action for slanderous words spoken of the plaintiff
by the defendant.
Mr. PAYNE opened the pleadings. The words charged in the
declaration as spoken of the plaintiff were--" You arc a pauper--
you have reeeired pariah relief—you are nothing better than a bank-
rupt, and will be in the bankrupt list in less than twelve months."
Plr. SCARLET? stated the ease to the Jury. He said, that the
Plaintiff was a respectableinnkeeper at Edmonton, and that the de-
fentlant was a smith. In the month of November, 1823. the de-
fondant, with two or three other persona, accidentally met at the
plaintiff's house, which is the Angel Inn, and took dinner, to
which they invited the landlord, Mr. Whittington. They drank a
little wine, but by no means in quantity sufficient to Intoxicate
them, and afterwards sat down to a game of four-handed cribbage,
the plaintiff not joining in the game, but only smiog by to peg the
holes for the players. Tile defendant having pegged thirty or forty
holes more than he ought to have done,the plaintiff pointed out that
he bad manes mistake, which after some little dispute Wee cor-
rected. From this moment the defendant began to manifest the
greatest animosity towards the plaintiff: He first took his hat and
struck the plaintiff on the face, and bruised his nose with it, appa-
rently in joke, and it wu so taken and submitted to. Presently,
closing his fingers in the form of a wedge, he pushed his band into
the breast of the plaintiff. The plaintiff remonstrated, and said
that his breast-bone had been formerly broken, and that in conse-
quence he was easily hurt by any blow there, and hoped the defend.
ant would not repeat his joke. A short time after the defendant again
pushed his hand at the same part, when the plaintiff called upon
him for an explanation of his conduct. High words ensued, in the
course of which the defendant used the words charged in the de-
claration. A later was shortly afterwards written to the defendant
by the plaintiff's eon, who is an attorney, ceiling upon him to re.
tract his words, but he refused to mike any explanation, or retract
a sillable.
The LORD CHIET JIYINTICE asked whether this OHM could
not be settled ?

Mr. ScAILSTT said, that he had even now no objections to
withdraw a juror, if the defendant would retract his words, end pay
the costa.

Mr. 1116211'AT. who was on the other aide, would not consen',
and the came went nn.
Snencer Witham, who was present on the occasion when theme
wards were spoken, was examined by Mr. BeounNAM, and proved
the case which Mr. Scarlett had opened.
Andrew Belson corroborated the statement of the preceding
witness, and said that he bad offered to mediate between the plain-
tiff and defendant, which mediation was, however, rejected.
Crosmexamined by Mr. LUDLOW—The plaintiff called the
defendant a poJr paltry bin/its:Di:h. I do not recollect whether
the defendant used the words " pauper, Se." before or after this.
Re-examined by Mt. SCANLETT-1 know that the plaintiff had
not used the wont's poor paltry blacksmith" before the defendatt
had raperedly struck him.
ilr. Lee, examined by Mr. SCAELETT—I was at the Angel
slim these words were spoken: they were not spoken jocularly.
I did not hear Mr. Whittington use any insulting words, or make
any provoking gestures, before Mr. Gladwin spoke these words. I
told Gladwin that evening that I had been a witness of the whole
transaction, and wished him to make an apology. He made no
apology. They were all quite sober.
trosmexamined by Mane TAT—Whittington did not call (Had.
win any hard names before these words were spoken.
This was the plaintiff's ease.
The Loup Cotter Juittet, addressing Mr. Marryat, said
that he supposed the case most go on to its end.
Mr. AlAngYAT—Cettainly, my Lord; your Lordship will see
tram the record. that there can be no such result as my Learned
Friend anticipates. lie then went on to comment on the evidence
which had been given. He said, that. if the plaintiffs son had not
been an attorney this ease would never have been heard of. It was
merely a question who should pay the cats; the plaintiffs
son hoped to make the &rendes: pay them, and it was with this
view be brought this action. The whole mattes had arisen out of a
drunkest fray. It had been very carefully kept out of sight how
much wino bad been drink; some wine had been drunk;
this was admitted ; but in what quantities there was ro one to tell.
The Jury, after consulting a few minutes, returned a verdict tor
the plaintiff—Damages 10/.

1131ITH NESSaII. PAL 31ER.
This was an action to recover the sum of SW., for oats sold to the
defendants.

31r. SCAIIILETT stated the caw to the Jury. The plaintiff is s
corn-merchant, the defendants are timber-merchants, carrying on
busineel IR Stratford, in Essex. The claim was resisted on the
ground that the oats were sold, not to the firm, consisting of the
two brothers, Henry and William Mater, but to the brother
Henry Palmer personally, and that it had been a setoff against
some gambling debts due from the plaintiff (slr. Smith) to Henry
Palmer, one of the defendants.
Witnesses having been gulled to prove the sale and delivery of
the mita in the month of November, 1623, to the order of Messrs.
Pa'tner,

Abr. eO7O MON SCROEAXT addressed the Jury for the defence.
Ills Learned Friend hail rightly sated that Mr. William Palmer
was a moat nspectsble many though it WAS equally true that so
mach eraikl nct be 3r.id for his brother Henry. The Learned
Count' contendeJ, that this sale of oats was a transaction between
the plaintiff and Mr. Henry Palmer; that the oats had not been
sold to the firm; and in particular inquired why the order to the
sharanger, which most be in the porsession of the plaintiff, bad
not beta produced, as it would have shown at once whether the
dlesses. Palmer bad anything to do with the sale. The Learned
Contest read a variety of documents, consisting of correspondence,
aceouni, he., to show that this matter had always been treated as
a ptin.e transaction between the plaintiff' and Mr. Henry Palmer.
The LORD Om, JUSTICE having called back one of the
plaintiff's witnesses, Mr. (Marius Smith, a brother of the plain.
tit salmi him what credit was usually given ? Ile said two months
for oats, and one month for wheat. His Lordship having then
asked 'h r. trcariett whether he conld carry his case any further, and
he having admitted that he could not, his Lordship proceeded to
that so long a period haring elapsed, an interval as it ap.
peered so much beyond the usual period of credit, before any de. ,
mend well made, he thought that this delay, coupled with the
docomentary evidence which had been read on the other side, did
not leave a doubt that the sale of the oats, for the proceeds of which
this action was brought, was not a partnership, but a private
transaction, and be should therefore direct the plaintif to be
notnuited.
Plaintiff Nonsutted.