The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-10 00:00:00

COURT OF

Attorney-General v. A.
Same v. R. Sargent

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAT 9.

MILLIS V. CUPDT.

This was an action of assault.
Mr. SCARLET T stated the ease to the Jury. He observed, that
he should in the outset say the wont of his client that Mr. Gurney,
on the other side, could say, namely, he was an attorney's clerk ;
and he brought this action m recover a compensation in damages
for a very great outrage that had been committed on him. On
Sunday, the 17th of Aprlldet the tut year, the plaintiff, in cool.
pany with his brother iodide cousin, was taking a walk towards
Tottenham, and after they had got beyond Highbury, they tin.
fortunately missed their way. In attempting to regain it by crossing
some fields, they came upon some ground belonging to the de.
fendant, close to the New River, along which they perceived a
beaten track As they approached a small hut, they saw a female
servant belonging to the defendant, of whom they inquired their
way, and expressed their hope that they were not trespassing. She
told them they were, and called the defendant's gardener, whq, on
coming out of' the hut, seized one of them, and began shaking and
bumping him, telling them at the same time that if they did not
he off, he would throw them into the river " like mutton." At
this time the defendant came out of his house, and running towards
the spot where all the parties were, called out to the gardener—
" throw them into the river I throw them into the river I" The
gardener, however, had not courage enough to follow this advice,
and the defendant coming up, seized the plaintiff under the arms,
and threw him into the middle of the river, where it was seventeen
feet wide, and between six and seven feet in depth. Fortunately
the plaintiff could swim, and he gained the opposite shore, where
he got out. and for this outrage the present action was brought.
Common decency and lioapitality should have suggested to the
defendant that he ought to have set these young men right, when
they had unintentionally lost their way, instead of making an at.
tack on the plaintiff which might have terminated his life ' • and If
it had, the defendant would have appeared to answer for his out.
ngeous conduct at another bar. Under all these cricumatances,
the Jury would say whether this was not a ease for such reasonable
damages as would teach the defendant that be was not to commit
these outrages with impunity.
A cousin of the plaintiff was then called, and proved the assault
as stated. In his cross-examination, by Mr. O•trney, he denied
having got over any fence ; and declared that he did not know
the difference between a stile and a gate, The ground appeared to
be newly laid out, and they did not know they were trespassing.
They took the defendant next day before a Magistrate, and bound
him over to the Sessions.

The brother of the plaintiff was nest called, and confirmed the
statement of the last witness.

Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, stated that If the plaintiff was
an attorney's clerk, though that was no disgrace to him, It enabled
him to know that he had no right to trespass on the land of other
persons. The fact was, that Mr. Cundy had unfortunately bulls
himself a very handsome cottage within four miles of London. He
was proceeding to lay out his pleasure-grounds in the spring of the
last year, and he found that, In spite of fences, the young Cockneys
of London, who did not know gates from stiles, thought fit every
Sunday morning to trespass upon his grounds, making a mad over
them, treading down the new.made flower.beds and disturbing
the shrubs. `{'hen he continually remonstrated with these tres.
passers, he was either abused, or else bantered with " Beg your
pardon I hope I don't intrude !" sad at length, on the morning In
question, aggravated by these repeated encroachments, he did cer.
tainly, in a moment of warmth, push the plaintiff into the river.
Well, what barn had been done? This young U3SG had certainly
got a ducking, but he must have known he was a trespasser; and
he had taken ample revenge br summoning Mr. Cundy before a
Magistrate, where he bound him over to appear at the Quarter Ses-
sions. Upon the whole, the Learned Counsel submitted that one
shilling would be an ample compensation for alt the wrong that had
been done.
The Loan CUM JUSTICE, in charging the Jury, told them
that the plaintiff wan clearly entitled to a verdict ; but, as it was
clear, from the statement of his own witnesses, thstehey must have
known they were trespassers, it would be fur the Jury to say whe.
ther the case called for more than moderate damages. It must be
ezceedingly aggravating to the plaintiff to have his garden tees.
passed on and trodden down ; but lie had suffered his passion to
tarry him rather too far in the present instance.
The Juicy consulted for a few minutes, and then found for the
plaintiff—Damages, 20/.
The Court was occupied In trials of no public Interest till a
late hour.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TuisnAr, 31AY 9.

On the first cause being called on, It was found that the junior
Counsel who was with ,Sergesnt Vaughan in the case had not at.
tended. The Lord Chief Justice, therefore, at first refused to
allow it to proceed, observing that he was constantly receiving let-
ters complaining of the absence of Counsel ; but on its being certi.
fied that, on the present occasion, the gentleman's absence was
occasioned by serious illness, big Lordship said he would suffer
this cause to proceed, but it should be positively the last time he
would do so under similar circumstances.
CHANEL V. LEVY.
This was an action brought by a coach-maker against a She.
riffs officer, for the price of a stanhope, built by him fur the de.
fendant.

dlr. Sergeant Kr LDr, for the plaintiff, proved the contract and
delivery ; while 11r. Sergeant VAUGHAN, for the defence, endea.
Toured to extract, by the crofts-examination of plaintiff's witnesses,
that the service was numflicient, having been made upon t
fendatit's son, and not on himself. lie failed, however,
doing, and the Jury found for the plaintiff'.
S.,me merriment was excited in the course of the trial,
the witnesses deposing that the defendant had ordered the
because a dennet previously built for hint wu too small,
modute himself, his follower, and " a friend I" which drew
the Bench a remark that the objection watt a singular one
these gentlemen generally contrive to stick pretty close
friends.' "

THE DISTRESSED AiL4IIIO2iICTURERt
TO THE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH FRES&
PLYMOUTH, May G.
Bra,—The Inhabitants of this and adjacent towns, Devonpeet
and Storehouse. are sensibly affected by the melancholy tidings
from the manufacturing districts. A meeting of the inhabitants
Stonehouse has been held, and a handsome subscription kited.
Among the donors are all the workmen employed in building the
new Victualling Office, each giving one daye pay. This day a
highly respectable meeting took place here. The Mayor presided,
and the Vicar of St. Andrew's, Rev. John Hatchard, opesed
proceedings of the assembly by a short, but pathetic appeal ter.
initiating in a proposal for an immediate subscription in aid of the
rued raising in London. Richard Ronde', Esq. followed the
Reverend Gentleman, and seconded the motion, which was cart•
ad
unanimously. The following gentlemen were chosen I CMDMlttet,
to further the ends of those assembled :—W. H. Hawker, E
Ire,e .
(Mayon, the Reverends John Hatchard, S. Courtney, R.
pen, and R. Hennah (Garrison Chaplain); H. Woolcombe, j,
Fownee, J. H awker,T. Cole, A. Frazer, E. Black more, R. Roseat.,,,
E. Scott, Esqrs. The books were now opened, and ins few coinatnt
the Treasurer (R. Resedew, Esq.) was paid nearly lOUt. Th,
books are to remain open at the banks for additional subscrintiiiii.
A similar meeting will forthwith be held at Devonport,
there is little doubt but the humane example so spontaneously to
by the Metropolis, will be followed throughout the whole of the
West of England. At our Meeting It was announced that the le.
boaters employed In the Breakwater purpose subscribing tact
day's pay.

*nu m. nnsrow, woreenter, ityttr
011 the de. curries--Oeofas and Molds Weill, see, and jun. Preston, drapers and Hi
ever, in .„ tea•olealent—Rdward Lodge and Robert flattershy, Lancaster, cabinet- hear
'' makers--Jubb Rparrow Reostead sad Jeremiah Charier Larken, Christ main
Church-pamage, Blackfriers. fortiera—George Wrigley, Low Side, near Of
,by one Or Oldham, Lancashire, and Thomas Shaw, Saddieworth, Yorkshire, cotton- to err
stanhope, spinners—Thomas Raker, Kkidermterter, and Illehard Tolley, Rewdley,
to atom. Woreeetembire, brickleyers—Margaret Pope and Ann Robinson Wig:
dm, from more•street, Cavendish-square,
street, Cavendish-uare, mtillnere—ltenjamin HlchinbothMe and we
4 James Dibble, Bow.street, bettehept—John Westgarib and James mos. •
one. 'as dale. (hest Merlborough.streit, painters--ThomesTri and Harlin
ttO 'their Wheeley, Hampden.sheet, Somers tows, brushmakeit—Jarees and Da- Print
del Greater, Brultvritch, Worcestershire, coal-dealer,.