The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-12-21 00:00:00

STOurt V. Roox.

Mr. Brtongn telt opened the pleadings, and stated that this was
an Mut directett by the Court of King's Beech, to try whether the
Pplaint or the defetidynt. had a right to the office of Clerk of the
eace for the county of llerford.
Mr. Alannyac 'toyed the ease to the .Jury. It appeared that
Mr. Ronk, sen., the father of the defendant, bad held the office of
Clerk of the Peace rot the coCniy of fleytforcl, either as principal
or deputy, for forty years. lie became at length, in 1013, very
aged and ill ; the late Marquis of Salisbury, the then Lord Lieu-
tenant of the county, therefore advised him to resign his situation
in favour of his son ; but without any ec-aigration having taken
place, Mr. Rook, jun. was appointed to the office. Subsequently
Mr. Rook, sen. recovered, and he ran:Muni to exercise the duties
of his office as until until his death. It would be proved in evi-
dence. that none of the ol&aal duties were performed by the am ;
that all deetiments were signed by the father, except a few in the
year 1313, that were not signed at all ; and that the defendant con-
tinued after 1813 to exercise his proferainn as an attorney, which
would have been illegal had he been the bona
_Mr Clerk of the
Peace. In (ctober. 1823. Mr. Rook, the father, died, and Lard
Verulam, then Lord Lieutenant of the county, appointed the
plaintiff, Mr. Story, to mimed him. Mr. Rook, jun. resisted
this appointment, on the grounds before stated. Rot it would be
shown, that tin writtett surrender had been made by the father,
although he t Mr. Mirryat) believed that some conversation would
be adduced, in proof that there had been a parole.
fleorge Falwerds produced the appointment of the plaintiff' to
the office of Clerk of the Prate. and proved the hand-writing of
Lord Verulam. It war dated 9th November, 11:=. Also several
letters from hie larolship and Mr. Rook, jun. on the subject in
dispute. Winless had searched for a deputation fmnt Rook,
see, to Rook. jun.. but could not find any. Had seen an entry of
the oath sulminirtered to Rook, jun.
A number of witnesses were then examined, to prove that all
the official ditties of the Clerk of the Pence had been performed by
Mr. Ronk, sett., without nny interference on the part of the son.
Mr. SCAILLETT, for thedefenee, said heshooki prove, that when,
in 1813, air. Rook, the father, was ill, the Marquis of Salisbury
sent for him, and requested he would reiriien. promising to give his
place to the son. The father did, .herefore, resign. Whether such
resignation was made by mite I. must be always unknown, but it was
very probable that ea the death of Lord Salisbury. if such a deed
had existed, it was destroyed, or laid by, by his Lotdship, in some
old coffer. (Me witness stated Ida undemanding that since
the year 1813, Mr. Itotik, jun. had been the Clerk of the l'esee
de jure, but he would contend that he held the office &facto. The
younger Alr. Rook was appointed by the late Marquis of S•lisbury,
and was subsequently sworn into office Rs Clerk of the Pear. It
was not a question whether the father after his recovery returned to
his 0111 duties, but the question was, whether he had a right so to
do. Suppose the son dad allow the father to perform these duties
and to receive all the fees, did this make the appointment void?
Neat not the eller have entered into partnership with the younger,
and agreed to penitent the dating of the office ? The Marquis of
Salisbury being dead, it was a hard thing thing to call upon the son.
who had held the office since 1813, to prove that a deed bad been
executed, or to resign.
Several witnesses were then called to tame that Mr. Rook. the
edger, hal resigned hie office only in coraideration that it should be
gi ten to his son; that Messrs. Rook. sen. and jun., had each acted
as Clerk of the Peace, arid had each signed documents to that
effect since 11113 ; and that the defendant hail not after that period
transacted holiness as an attorney. _ . .

Mr. MAaaYAT was heard in reply. Ile contended that the
son was only assisting the father during his illness, and was not
acting as Clerk of the Peace. If the son had died first, by what
testimony. be would ask, could the father have been removed from
the office t It was el.nr that all the sutstantial business of the
county was transacted by the father. And if ao, what was then
to prove, that if the Lin had died heat the Lard Lieutenant
would have been authorised in sa)ing there was a vacancy in the
ofike ?
The Lotto CHIEF it:evict in summing up the evidence, left
it to the Jury to d .tide whether Rook, the tither, did resign his
office as Clerk of the Peace; and if eei whether he did it iu favour
of his ono.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; thus confirming
the appointment of Lord Verulacn.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 01:11.nicALL, Mostimy,
PEctxrEa 20.

tx:fine Chief Justice BEST axd a Special Jury.

noinsson v. 0110,E.
Mr. SiTrelMt VAITG II AN edareitsed the Jury On the part of the
plaintiff. This was as action brought by a well-known and must
respectable merchant, to recover compensation in damages for an
assault committed on him by the defendant. Ile owed to himself,
to his friends, and to the country, to seek this mode of reparation
for the twofold injury he had .ustained—an a:tack upon his charac-
ter and an assault on his person. There was no more important
function which a Jury could be called upon to exercise, than in
muting down and punishing those who transgressed in the way that
the present def.:aslant had done, by forgetting the conduct they
ought, as becomes them as merchants aria as gentlemen, to
pursue. It happened that in August last, Mr. Ooltismitl. had oeca-
sinn to go to Paris. to negociate there for the eontinnatum of the
Spanish Loon, or on some other business, which it was not ma-
terial now to consoler. Accordingly lie went to lirighton on the
13th of August, to take leave of his family. The defendant there
called upon Ann, and requested to take part in the negotiation.
The conversation that passed there between them the plaintiff' re.
served to him mi self the vilege of publishing whenever he might
think proper. On that occasion the defendant expressed a desire
to be intnalueed ton Mr. flatly, and, agreeably to his desire, Mr.
tialdsinid introduced him to that gentleman on his return to town.
3lr. Goidsmid told alr. Itsily what had passed between him and
the defendant, and the statentent which he made was afterwards
admitted by the defendant to be correct. Shortly subsequent to
this, the plaintiff went to Paris, and returned in fourteen days t he
saw nothing of the defendant for two moths after his return. The
first time that he saw him after his return was on the lOth of ()ma.
be. As Mr. (colds: rid was going into the Stork Exchaage,
through Shorter's-alley, he saw the defendant coming towards him.
who asked some explanation of what lie (the plaintiff) had said of
him. Ile commenced immediately to use warn and even abusive
language, shook his umbrella over him, and told him he knew
what that meant. 'lr. lioldamiti. as throughout this husincat,
acted with perfect propriety : he told hint thsr, after what had
pasted at Paris, lie could not, as a gentleman, go out to tercet hint.
[The Learned Sergeant here de,,dled the circumstances of the as-
sank as suhsequently described by the witnesses.) After this in.
suit, inflicted at the entrance of the Stock Exchange, on the very
threshold of tile sanctuary of commerce—at a place anti at an hour
when it was the mart of the merchants of the city, what course was
left to the plaintiff hut to vindicate his character by en appeal such
as he now made to a Jury of Merchants ?-11e *ought reparation
from such a tribunal, who were the most appropriate arbiters to de-
chic on such a transaction. lie (Mr. Sergeant S sughan) hoped that
their verdict would teach merchants and gentlemen how to act un.
der similar circumstances in future, and to look to the laws of
the country for protection from insult and outrage. The question
for them to consider was, who was in the wrong ? who made the first
move? The plaintiff disele,...ed any wish for heavy damages: he
only sought such damages as would mark their appnibation of 141
cundurt. and might swore to protect him from the repetition of such
An injury and insult. Ile (31r. Sergeant Vaughan) apprehended that
ha should not again have the opportunity of addrea.ing them. Ile
, saw that a luminary front the north (Mr. Itonighant) had been
engaged on this OCCIPs.OI3, and brought to enlighten their dark
hemisphere. If there were any man who could . make the worse
I appear the better ramie," his Learned Friend was eminently quill-
tied to do so. The having recourse to his Learned Friend was a
proof of the weaknam of the defearlant'a ease. In eases of desperate
I di/tease. extraordinary remedies were resorted to ; and as the deten-
r dant felt his ease to he one of that nature, he had recourse to an
. extraordinary physician in his desperate emergency. The disteru.
e per was tuutol so daugerow, that his Learned Frijud's advice and

assistance were found necessary to resort to. He would proceed to
wi:nesscs to prone the cireitmatances as he had sulamitud them;
end he felt enniiil.2 it that the Ju-y would mark Ly their verdict
their approbation of his who, instead of adopting• barbarous
method of appcd, pri leered a more 110,i:tit/able and proper canc—
an appeal to a Jury of his I:Now-citizens.
The following rite:soca were the,. called
Mr. Ebenett r IlarLer examine.l—l ant aerprainted with tbe plain-
tiff and the deft:oda:it. I ant iu tit, habit of attending at the Stock
Exchange : the pl.hitifl. there Also. On the day of the
assault I was in the lobby, lead its in the Stock Exchange. The
plaintiff was speaking to a gen:le:ran there when' the tiefendant
came up, and shaking en umittel la over the plaintili, said, "" it you
area gentleman you know alt.it is ment by that The plainiilf
replied, that he It.:ew better ilia., to go ant with such n ono. Dr.
timdant applied a great ma-.): abusive epithets to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff s:itl, " go to Pam and see what they will say of you
there." Defendant rejoined, 1 have been there, you fool." The
plaintiff vine:net! hint to be aware wl.at he was about. This oft.
curred in the hour of transacting public business. Many perso.'
Came up, hearing there was a row. The putties were close
tore: her. . .

truss-examined—The first wools I heard pass between the parties
were, •• if you are a gentleman you know what that means.' The
....!erendant previously walked up and stook an umbrella over him.
I do not know what occurred before that; I certainly heard the
plaintiff Ray, " I know better than to go out with such a man as
rm." 1 think " man" was the word used by the defendant.
There were many n• • ',sive words on both sides; both were in a pas-
st-n. The defendant was noHe allusive than the plaintiff.
Re-examined—The plaintiffs did not, fa iny hearing, call the de-
fendant any name*.
Mr. IV in. fflorgon examined—l on a member of the Stock Ex-
change; I new the transaction. I die not stay to notice what pre-
cisely passed; but there was a general abuse. The quarrel must
have lasted some time. The getaral ',lute wan form Mr. (troves.
Cross examined-31r. (lid ismid Raid, " there is no use in my
talking 'stilt you ; every hotly ki.ows what you are." I heard a
great deal of abuse, btu I i!u not recollect the particulars.
Mr. Jkcob Ricardoexamined —I have been subrensed hero by
both parties, and have declined to give my evidence to either. I
was in conversation with the plaintiff when the defendant came np.
Toe defendant tint said, " I wish to have a little explanation with
you at any time." or " I wish you would fix o time. "rhe
tiff replied, " Well, Sir." ITe d•fendant then said, L'pon a
recent occasion, roar coAuct has been anything but the conduct
of a gstadcman." then said, " You are not a judge of
my conduct ; and I will not put my character in competition with
sours." Ido rot exactly remember what !mined afterwards, until
the defendant shook hin umbrella over the plaintiff:
Crop-examined—There wan a great deal of r_ermination on both
sides, which lasted a entisideraWe tittle. They were not confined
to Mr. Groves. Mr. Groves grew very angry in the course of the
conversation. Ido not 'violent!, to have heard the plaintiff any,
at an weedy part of the debate, that lie wan advised at Paris not to
have any thing to say to the defendant. I cannot say that the de.
tentant said Viet an explanation was nectesare, in order to remove
an impression front his mind. Plaintiff might have said " Here
is Mr. Ricanlio, you can say what you have to say here."
Mr. BROUGHAII—)Iid not Mr. Golditirdd go behind several
permits to continue the debate ? (A laugh.)
Witness--I went away just at that time.
Mr. BIOUGIIIAW—Vou cried " Question," having got enough
of the debate, as they do elsewhere sic netinies. (Laughter.)
Witness-I,e continued the argument, with the umbrella over
plaintiff's head. This could not have continued lung after I left, as
I saw Mr. Goldsotid a few minutes afterwards. The quarrel first
began in the middle of the court.

The plaintles ease closet! here.
Mr. Iltotraumi rommete.d his address to the Jury; after
which Mr. Serjeant Vaughan wished to call another witness, Mr.
tinily, to captain some circumstances out of which this assault

Thz wimew was called, and proomied to n6•r an eaphination of
zone circumstances that occurred Dia weeks before, relative to Mr.
idautites visit to Paris.

Mr. PROUCIIIA It objected to the admission of this testimony;
first, as th.. plaintiff's case hid been already closed, and he had
commenced his address ; and secondly. because the evidence of
the transaction of six weeks previous occurrence was quite foreign
to the question on which the Jury were now called upon to decide.
The further evidence of Mr. Rally nas not admitted, and the
beamed Gentleman proceeded in his address If his Learnt-I
Friend had moved nine-tenths of the statement which he had ad-
dressed to the Jury, he (Mr. Brougham) would be ready to admit
that then indeed, strong case had been madenut agaiaat his client ;
but the evidence had not in a remote degree sustained that
stattment. Inds conduct had been correct, honourable, and gentle-
' manlike, would the plaintiff have acted in the manner in which he
had been described by his own wite.emes to have duo". It was
proved that the defendant, in a perfectly mild and gentlemanlike
manner, had asked the plaintiff fur an espial, winn of what the de-
fendant supposed he might have said of him. The fact of his
having asked him mildly for an explanation, was proved by that
respectable witness, his (Mr. Brougham's) frivel-31r. Ricardo.
From this, the Jury must conclude that something must have
previously passed between the parties, which, from the nature of
the present proceedings, was shut out from their knowledge. They
could know nothing of the conduct or the expressions Mr which
Mr. Grove sought an explanation. Here was a blank. which they
were left to supply as they might. It had been occasioned by the
proceedings which the plaintiff had thought proper to resort to. He
(Mr. Brougham) had known many cases stream to the present, Its
which • different mode of proceeding had been adopted. It was
usual, when a person bad been insulted in this way, in which the
plaintiff alleges that he has received an insult tending to a breach
of the peace—to make an affidavit of the facts, to put it on the file of
the Court of King's Bench, aid to apply fur a criminal information
againtt the party by whom he had been insulted. There the wholecir-
cumstanees would appear, the depositions of both parties be received.
and a decision made according to the merits of the ease; but the
plaintiff had thought proper to brtrg it here, where the oath of
neither of the parties could be taken, aril where he brings so much
fiwwanl of the case as suits his own interest. But even when they
considered the ease in its present shape, framed with all the disad-
.

vantages to his client *filch he had submitted, what was the eon.
duet of the plaintiff in the account of the trameetion as it has been
detailed to them in evidence? They would find he had used lan-
guage of recrimination not leas gaffing than he accused the de.
tenant of having used towards him. What would any
one of them (the Jury) say, or how would he feel if he
were to be told, as this plaintiff told his client, " You dare
not show your face at Paris?" What insult timid be mice
aggravated than that?? and it was here the more offensive, as it
was a totally groundless and unjust aspersion on his client.
This was spoken in the presence of fifty persons, aid the Jury
must naturally suppose that the feelings of Air. Drove were greatly
irritated at it. Another tem...ion of the plaintiff no less calculat-
ed to Incense the mind of Mr. Grove was, "Ask Mr. flaring what
they say of ymt ?" Was that nothing ? Was it nothing, before other
merchants, to call one of the leading merchants of the metropolis
as a voucher of the charges he preferred against him ? These were
serious charges; their malignity were concealed in their vagueness,
I but although they were too vague to be answered, yet they were
sufficiently particular to show that he had some reason or anthoritv
for uttering and preferring them. Yet his Learned Friend would
fain wish the Jury to think that the plaintiff' WAS the only offended
party. Did the expressioa, "Go to Paris and hear what they say
of you there." look like this. Ilia client had been there, and heard
what was said of hint three by certain people ; and in ormsetpience
of what he had heard, came to the plaintiff for a satisfactor ‘ ex-
planation, which he snpposed he might afford him. When all the
rircumstanees of the case came under the dispassionate considera-
tion of the Jury. he was satisfied they would not regard it as one
of that aggravating nature that the learned Sergeant had represent-
ed it to be. Although he should admit, on the part of his client,
that a harsh expression had escaped hint, and therefote that aver-
, diet trust pass against Hill, as a matter of course, yet the damages
I should be merely nominal, as no injury had been sustained by the
plaintiff in the present instance. It was idle to deny that this
action waft brought he the nitre purpose of making money : if
not, the other course would have been resorted to, where the

statement of both parties might be given CM oath, and the case ills.
posed °fon its own merits. The Court of King's Bench was always
ready to lend itself to the admission of a party that he had acted
wrongly, and if such admission were refused, they pronounced an
open and full inquiry. There it was necessary that the conduct of
the prosecutor should be blameless : this wan not the present cue,
where the provocation of the pLsintifFclid all but justify the con-
duct of the defendant. If they gave heavy damages, he was sure
there was no person who would Le mote surprised at their verdict,
or entertain lera respect for it. than the burned Sergeant himself.
Ills Learned Friend had somewhat ur.fairly argued upon the despe-
rate nature of the disease under which the defendant laboured, from
his having ;tune out of the way fur a physician. lle (Hr. 11.) was
ready to admit he was not a regular practitioner of thst Court ; he
had not graduated there. nor assumed the cap, which wan an ern-
' Mem of those who had taken their degrees there. But the reason
that his cliet.t selected him was, that his case was that plain simple
one. that it did not require a mularly graduated Doctor to d.r.l
with it, but that it would be safe in any hands. Ile was satisfied
the Jury would feel it so, and that they would also feel that the
charge was one, which, from the circumstances of the case, 'la-
megea in the most mitigated amount would amply satisfy.
- -

The l'it tee JUSTICE said, that aa the learned Courael who
had so eloquently addressed them for the defendaue, had admitted '
the assault, it was not necessary for him to offer any obierrations
upon that subject, so he would confine himself to the cansii!eration
of the damages which they might think ought to be awarded to
the plaintiff under the circumstances of the case. Front the farce
and ability with which the learned Conned dwelt upon one point
(as indeed he did upon all points he undertook to disease'. namely.
the propriety of havitig this can brought b fire the King's nencli.
where all ihr facts out of which this action mote, might be de-
yalopetl, he thought it right to remind the Jury, that the Learned
Counsel had been himself principally instrumental, in haring these
farts submitted to them, as he .topped one of the witnesses (Mr.
who was about to detail them. .tnother reason why he
thought this a preferable tribunal to try a case of this kind was,
that os the transaction occurred in the city, a Jury of London flier.
chants was the most satisfactory tribunal to dispose of it The
damages i*.ley would award should be moderate—sulficient to
off the disgr.re the plaintiff had sustained, and sufficient to signify
their approbation of his basin" made this appeal fur redress to the
laws of the country, whereby tic consulted what was due to his
own character, rather than that other senseless one, that shows bin
the possession of one quality. which a man may possess in tl:e
absence of every other cielcUlatri to reader him rithcr amiable
ur respectable.
The Jury consulted togethar for a few cai..!ut!s, ar.l re:Lane:la
verdizt —Damages, LO:y