The Sun.
London, England, 1855-08-15 00:00:00

THE LATE DISTURBANCES IN HYDE.

PARK.

Yesterday, a special session was held at the instance
of Mr. Foster Owen, the High Constable of Westmin-
ster, at the Sessions-house, for the purpose of hearing
the cases of persons whose property had been damaged
in the late disturbances, and who claimed compensation
from the Hundred, under the 7th and Bth Geo. IV., c.
31. The magistrates present were Mr. Augustus Robin-
son, chairman ; Mr. J. W. Thrupp, and Mr. William
Evans ; and notices of claims had been received from the
following persons :—Mr. Richard Curling, 29, Gros-
venor-street West ; Mr. J. T. Payne, 27, Grosvenor-
street West : Mr. C. Lacy, 5, Wilton-street ; Mrs. Rosa
Taynton, 3, Wilton-street ; Mr. Edward Warner, 49,
Grosvenor-place ; Mr. C. B. Adderly, 54, Grosvenor.
place ; Mrs. Edwards, 34, Upper Eaton-street ; Mrs.
Jane Marshall, 1, Wilton-street ; Mrs. Greenhauter, 6,
Wilton-street ; Mr. R. Pulsford, 5, Upper Belgrave-
street ; Lord Charles Wellesley, 3, Upper Belgrave.
street; and Sir George F. Seymour, 115, Eaton•square;
but in the last three cases the notices have been with-
drawn.

Tvlr. Curling's case was the first called on, his claim
being for 181. 75., the value of a plate glass window
which had been destroyed by the mob.
Catherine Wright, a servant girl, proved the damage.
She saw a great crowd of men and bop, who were
hallooing and shouting, and who almost frightened the
life out of her. They were pelting as bard as they
could, and they broke Mr. Curling's windows.
To the Chairman—The mob stayed about five minutes,
and then went away, but she could not tell why they
went. They did not appear to be driven away. They
did not attempt to injure the doors of the houses, but
only the windows.
The Chairman inquired how Mr. Curling brought his
case within the Act ?
Mr. Curling.said his property had been destroyed by a
tumultuous mob, and under those circumstances the
act said that he was to apply to the magistrates, who

were to say whether he was entitled to compensation.
That he thought was the common sense view of the law,
The Chairman referred to the second section of the
act, which stated that compensation should be awarded
only where property should have been feloniously de-
molished, pulled down, or destroyed, wholly or in part,
by any persons riotously and tumultuously assembled
together, and inquired whether there was any felony in
this case.

Mr. Curling was of opinion that when a mob like this
went wilfully and maliciously to destroy another's pro-
perty, they acted

The Chairman said that' the term feloniously was
used as a specific term for a certain crime, and the ques-
tion was whether this mob has committed any felony.
There were several decisions upon the matter.
Mr. Curling trusted that the magistrates would deckle
not according to precedent, but according to the com-
mon-sense view of the case.

The Chairman—There were two classes of crimes, one
felonies, and the other misdemeanours, and there was no
doubt that the mob committed no felony, though they
might have committed misdemeanour-2.

Mr. Curling submitted that by so deciding, the magis-
trates would encourage a feeling of insecurity, whilst on
the other hand chey should all feel secure if they had the
protection of the law. Ho came there under a
specific act of Parliament, which said that, if his property
was demolished, the Hundred should make compensation.
The Chairman—lf "feloniously" demolished.
Mr. Curling thought if a mob, setting all law at defi-
ance, and to gratify a wicked disposition, destroyed pro-
perty, they acted feloniously. He might himself have
been behind the glass, and been killed; and then it would
have been felony.
The Chairman' said that this kind of felony had been
defined in another act, which said that where any per-
sons riotously assembled together should unlawfully and
with force demolish, pull down, or destroy, any dwell-
ing-house, shop, ctc., or begin to do so, every such of-
fender should be guilty of felony.
Mr. Curling submitted that this mob had began to de-
molish and pull down.

The Chairman—They had only broken the windows,
and if they had been well thrashed it would have served
them right, but there was no felony. The decision of
the bench must be to refuse to make the order for com-
pensation, and if Mr. Curling was dissatisfied he could
appeal, but he (the Chairman) thought it would not be
worth his while, for the law was dead against him.
Similar decisions were given in several other cases,
and the business of the session terminated.