The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-06 00:00:00

MIDLAND CIRCL'IT-

NORTHAMPTON, JULY 4.
CIVIL. SIDE.
RITTRARD et. ROBERTS, n.n.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attorney in this
county, againat the defendant, who is a Magistrate and a Clergy-
man, to recover the amount.of a bill of costs incurred by the de-
fendant for conveyancing, &c.
Mr. READEn opened the pleadings.
Mr. CLARKE briefly stated the case. The plaintiff in this case,
as the Jury told just heard, was an attorney, and the defendant a
Rev. Divine. The plaintiff brtiught this action to recover the amount
of a fair and honest account for work and labour done for this gen.
!tempt. The defendant held a living in this county, which he
wivhed to exchange Inr another, and in order to facilitate the affair
the present bill was incurrecl.Why it was resisted he could not state
to the Jury t but when he proved the work done, and the reason-
ablenetat of the charges, he had no doubt lie woald be entitled to
their verdict.

The plaintiff's clerk was called, and proved that the work as
charged, was performed.

He was cross.eximined by Mr. PintAtm with a view to
show that the plaintiff htd bro•tght other actions for the same
work, but the witness distinctly swore that it was not included in
the former actions.

Two profesional gentlemen were then called as to the reason-
ableness of the charge'. One thought them all fair. and the other
thought they might be reduced, but only by so small a sum as nine
shillings.
111 r. Pot curs addresited the Jury for the defendant. He
contended there was itomething at least suspicious in the conduct of
the plaintiff. If the work was perforated, why not include it in the
former action ? Or rather, if it were Performed, would not the
Jury believe that it would have been included ? Such was the only
inference which could fairly be drawn front the whole of the trana-
action. His client had no wish to evade the Payment of any debt
honestly cantracted, and he now resisted this unfounded claim be-
cause he had evidence to produce that the work was done et the re-
quest of another person, sod that it was also in a great degree paid
for by that other person. The amount of the present hill was not
the objection, but that the defonilant should be sought to be ha.
raced by this action without the colour of foundation.
The Rev. Mr. Rolls was calliA. and he proved that the exchange
in question was effected actisietrucit, and that he peel the ex-
penses attending it.
might hare been Inetirred pre-

vious to the exchange.
The clerk of the defendant's attorney was next called, and swore
that he held several conversations with the plaintiff relative to this
action ; that lie called on him last Tuesday, when he used the
coarsest language relative to the defendant. It was so bad he was
almost ashamed to otter it ; but if pressed of course he must do so.
Alr. PHILLIPS—WiIy, my modest ymmg friend, 1 know what
he said, and therefore wish to have the Jury know as much as we
do; therefore, Sir, let us hear it.
Witness—Why, Sir, he said " D—n Mr. Roberts ; "and though
he is a Alagistrate and a Doctor in Divinity, I'll indict him for
perjury. I'll make him remember me before I leave ham.
Air. PHI 1.1.1 PS—And so he had the audiei:y to say so much !
But don't you believe it WAS said in allusion to a certain affi-
davit sworn by the Doctor ?—1 believe it was.
Mr. CLARKE briefly replied; and the Jury, under the direction
Of his Lordship, found • verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 201.

SHERARD V. 3110SSOP.
Thin war nn action brought by the same plaintiff, in his charnmer
of Steward of the Manor of Elberton, in this county, fur work and
labour done for the use of the defet,dart,

For the plaintiff it wu prowl that the work was performed, and
that its performance was necessary ; as also that the charges were
reasot.able and necessary to the furtherance of the defendant's
object.

or the defendant it was contended that the sum of money al-
ready paid into Court was quite rufficient compensation, and that
but for the inattention and carelessness of the plaintiff; these
charges would have been altogether unnecessary.
The GRIEF linaom summed up the evidence ; and the Jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 31.
ASSAULT.

R !BEING V. BERTON.

This was an action for assault. The pleadings were opened.by
Mr. J. M. I'l'lll.El/qt.

Mr. CLARKE stated the case. The plaintiff was a respectable
Manchester warehouseman, residing Is London, and he brought
this action to recover compensation in damages for an assault of
as gross and unprovoked a nature as could be imagined. The
defendant, it was stated to him, moved in the circle of gentlemen,
and had a considerable property, a portion of which would per-
haps not be improperly expended in his being taught something
of the manners usually shown by gentlemen. The defendant was
also said to be a scientific bruiser, and iht ught he'd try his
Powers on the plaintiff; who had neither the disposition nor the am-
bition to set-to • ither with a Cribb, or a man like the present defen-
dant. tin the evening of last Easter Monday, the plaintiff and his
brother called at the mail-coach office in this town, in order to
engage two places in the London Mail. They were promised
places, rito Ard there shoold bi any on the arrival of the coach,
which wa+ expected at a quarter before ten. However. on the ar-
rival of the coach, it' h.ippened that tl ere was only one place
vac, nt and Mr. Be ton, the defendant. being then in the office,
said to a friend who accompanied him, and who was, like
the plaintiff, 'mama. to get to London-" Jump in, my bob,
tbeee's plenty' of newt for yon." 4bt bdajciepar then Mort
fr fired and-,Md, •4 No, Sir, that place is ATiraay secured by
Mr. Kipling, title and his blether chocse to separate from each
other." Just at this period the 31 Kiplings reached the
office, and after some trifling consultation the plaintiff'determined
to proceed to London. Then, said the defendant to his friend,
" Well, the next place is sure to he yours." " No, Sir, I beg
your pardon," said the plaintiff; '• it's pre-engaged for my brother,
and your friend cannot have it." hold your blab or your gab.
then, rejoined the deftniant, in a most ungentlemanly tone and
manner ; upon which Mr. Kipling said, " Sir, I do not under-
stand such language, and I confess I seldom hear it used by
gentlemen." But Mr. Berton would have a quarrel ; there were
some persons who could not sleep until after a row, and he even
added the further provocation of calling the plaintiff' and his
brother a pair of blackguards. To this the plaintiff replied, that
31r. Berton's conduct was more Ilke that of a blackguard than his
(Mr. Kipling's) had been, upon which the defendant struck him a
violent blow in the eye, which prevented his appearance for nearly
three weeks. Now the Jury would see, that an unprovoked blow
was given, and if there was one thing more than another, which all
men disliked, it was that of receiving a blow,as the very recollection
of it would stick by a man almost to the very end of his life. Such
was the case which he was instructed to say he would be enabled
to prove, and if he succeeded, it would be for the Jury to give such
damages as would teach limey pugilists, under the garb of gentle-
men, that however they might indulge in a turn-up with Belcher
or Cribb, that they were not to outrage, assault, and insult, the
peaceable subjects of the realm.
Thomas Shaw, jun., clerk to the Mail Coach Office, the
brother of the plaintiff; and two other witnesses, who were pre-
sent at the transaction, fully proved the statement of the Learned
Counsel.

Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, for the defendant, contended that the
evidence fell very fir snort of his Learned Friend's opening ; for
example, they had no evidence of the defendant's fortune--of his
pugilistic prowess, or his Herculean sue gtlt. In fact, the London
attorney got up the case. He knew he must have a verdict, and
that the verdict would, in all probability, cover the costs. The
whole transaction was a mere trumpery business, which should not
have been brought before the Court. Under all the circumstances it
would be for the Jury to say what damages would be git tn iia case
so utterly contemptible.
The LORD CHIEF BARON, in summing up the evidence, ob.
served that the asperity of language did not originate with the
plaintiff, and that the defendant could by no means justify the
assault. The Jury was, however, the proper tribunal to asssaa
fair and temperate damages, and to their decision he would now
consign the case.
• The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff:—Damages 15!. and all the expenses.
The Loxo Cum. BARON—You will say? Gentlemen, costs—
forty shillings, and that sill accomplish the object you have in view.