The National Register.
London, England, 1809-12-10 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TUESDAY, DEc. 5.
Before Sir JAMES MANSFIELD, and a Special Jury.
CLIFFORD, ESQ. v. BRANDON.
The followiug are the names of the Jury in this Cause:—

Stephen Dick, Esq.
*Edmund Jeunings, Esq.
William Day, Esq.
George i';cott, Esq.
Thomas Rogers, Esq.
Mark Cooke.

William Best.
Thomas Ryan.
John Seymour.
George Reader.
Thomas Greenway.
Richard Norton.

Mr. Serjeant BEST rose on behalf of the Plaintiff, and ob-
served that the Plaintiff was a Gentleman of the Bar, a man of
an ancient family ; but far more distinguished for the urbanity
of his manners, the extent of his learning, and the splendour of
his talents. The present complaint was that of an outrageous
assanit upon the person of the Plaintiff, and which, to a man of
his profession, was, to the last degree, unworthy and insulting,
the Defendant ordering him to be dragged before a Magistrate,
sc hieb Magistrate., having heard all that could be alleged against
the Plaintiff ordered him to be discharged. The answer to this
charge against the Defendant was, that there was a riot in Co-
vent Garden Theatre, and that the Plaintiff was one of the
rioters, and was therefore apprehended by the Defendant, and
brought before a Magistrate, to receive justice for his share in
that riot. The Learned Serjeant should not do justice to him-.
self if he did not declare his conviction and agreement that, how-
ever illegal the measures of :he Proprietors of Covent Gar-
den Theatre might be, they were not to be resisted by riot : they,
On the one hand, were guilty of extortion, but the public, on the
other, were not, therefore, to be guilty of riot. It was not on
this ground that the Learned Serjeant rested his case; and there-
fore if the trnth of all the Defendant's pleas could be proved
this day (which the Learned Serjeant was confident it could not)
they would form no answer to this action : still the Jury must
find their verdict for the Plaintiff. If the Learned Serjeant had
rested his case on this ground, however the Jury must have been
convinced that the Managers of the Theatre had provoked the
riot, still they would have been bound to find their verdict for
the Defendant. But as the present case would stand, the Jury
would be reduced to no such dilemma. At the same time, it was
a fact that, if there had been any illegal uproar in Covent Gar-
den Theatre, from the stave, and not from the audience did it
arise. If, however, there had been no riot, or if there was any,
if the Learned Serjeant could prove that the Plaintiff took no
part in it, then, when the Jury came to the question of Damages,
it was material to consider what had been the conduct of the
Managers of flak Theatre; and whether they hail mistakenly
taken the' Plaintiff up, without any malice towards him ; or,
whether they knew him, and singled him out, without any pre-
tence whatever. And here he could not help admiring the dig-
nified moderation of the Plaintiff in not. laying his present dam-
ages at a large sum : it was not profit that the Plaintiff looked,
for, and he had therefore laid them at the sum of only 1001. a
sum which wa- no object to a gentleman, who, the Learned .Ser-'
jeant rejoiced to say, was as independent in. circumstances as he
was in mind. Non that eve'', that SUM would evr find, its way
'into the pocket of the Plaintiff; the Learned Serjeant pledged .
himself it should he employed for the purposes of assisting these
'who ?uncured under au oppression similar to that which was
complained of to-day.