The National Register.
London, England, 1818-01-19 00:00:00

SAN. 19.

RIOTS IN LONDON.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, THURSDAY, JAN. t 5.
(Special Juries.)
EtcKsimi Y. univaes AND ANOTHER.

An action on the Ist Geo. 1. c. 12, commonly called the
Riot Act. The first count of the declaration stated, that on
the ed of December, 1816, diverse persons, being in limn.
her 12 or more, unlawfully, riotously, and tumult uonsly
assembled together in the parish of St. Sepulchre, and unlaw-
fully demolished, and began to demolish, the bonne ut the
plaintiff. The second count set out certain goods, the pro-
perty of the plaintiff, injured. destroyed, and carried away.
On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. Gurney stated, that the
present action, as prescribed by the very wholesome statute
on which it. was founded, was brought against two of the
respectable inhabitants of the ward, who would not be called
upon to pay the sum recovered ; it would be collected by a
general rate upon the hundred. It was unnecessary to enter
into a detail of the particular, of those riots, so disgraceful
to the persons concerned i n them, and so injnrious to the
property of many individuals in the line of streets through
which the rioters proceeded. The attack commenced upon
the house of the plaintiff, a atm smith in Skinner-street, for
the object of the itifamous disturbers of the public peace was
to arm 1 ileatAt•iVeS co as to be able to intimidate the peaceable
salljects o; the King into :iii vision, or to resist any attack
that might he made upon them by the military. Young
Watson, of whom so lt had been beard, and who had
Ithrollllllately escaped joistice, first entere.l the shop of the
plaintiff, demanding arms; and on meeting with remon-
strance by Mr. Platt, a customer, he drew a pistol, anti shot
that eentlentati ; he was secured, au d the mob instantly com-
menced :in attack neon the house, breaking in the windows,
both wood and brass work, declaring, that they would de-
molish the house completely if their leader were not restored
to them. The damage done to the house amounted to 611.1
ls. id. A certain number of the arms taken awicy had been
restored, but greatly injured ; and the value of them, in their
deteriorated state, was 3031 'l3s. atl. The .value of the gene,
pistols. are. of which no tidings had arm-- been obtained,
was 9111. 195.; making, in the whole, 1,2811. I3s. 110 d.; the
amount the plaintiff sought to recover by this action.
Hipline, the foremen of the ..laintiff. proved mai/ facts
already before the public, relative to the attack upon the
plaintiff's shop. Yonne Watson came in demanding" Arms!
Arms!" and the mob re-echoed the cry. When he was
taken, Borne the rioters exclaimed, " We will pull
the b—v house down, we will have him out." They began
their alt ask immediately. This relation was confirmed by
Mr. Lydiard, wIM also proved that several ,of the crowd
threatened to demolish the I 1111 l se.
J. H. Houghton, J. Fling, and C. Jones, tredesinste
employed in repairing the injury„ proved that their various.
bills amounted to 611. Is. 44.
Mr. Parker, Mr. got-timer, and Mr. Nock, three gun-
amitlisolcomed that the snot of 3031. 13s. 6d. for guns, ate.
damaged. and 9111. 19s. for such as had been taken away and
never returned, was reasonable.
(lninnem SerJeant, on behalf of the defendants, con-
fitlatitly armed that the plaintiff had no pretense for claim.
ing 1,2811. tinder the Riot Act, which provided. (in cense-
quenee of onmerons disturbances and destructions of meeting
haute •. eve. at the lime it was passed,) that the party injured
,Mould have his remedy ;sealig the hundred, it' the mob either
demolislted or began to demolish the dwelling house of the
plait odi 1. had beets detifted in many cases, that in order
to Atmore this action, it must arise out of a felony corn.
milted t xaresitly under the act; the proceeding of the mob
most ti 1 •re; e.l to the demolition of the house, and it' the
rioters a. 4 ins other pm pose in their attack, the action
could ot he maintained. Here it seemed clear that the
design W.o. Isi Obtain arms in the first instance, and afterwards
to lib; at; their leader, young Watson ;and if they plundered
the shop, that uas a felor.y, but p felony of quite a different
Lind : it was a burglary, and v.;:.s punishable as a burglary,
and the sidiering party could obtain no compensation front
the liondred, For this reason the plaintiff could not recover
for the are's: stolen, though he might perhaps, for those
dams eel. 'ln CI icsley v. Higginbotham (I East. 136) the
Court ofKing's Bench had held, that a baker suing mailer the
Riot Act. could nut obtain damages for a quantity of door
which had been oat:len from his premises flaring a riot, in
which his premises wore assailed and injured.
Lord ellenborough.—Thete no damage was done to the
building containing the flour stolen ; that ease has no rela-
tion to 'lsis -• it is not ad idem. You had better open the book
at ratlike., end quote from what first presents itself.
Mr. '• mile% (with the Comfilan Sergeant) read the note of
(he ease in ir der to convince his Lordship that he was mis-
taken ; P appeared that considerable damage had been
doze to the building to which the warehouse from whence
The fluor was stolen was a lean-to; but it was held by the
Court, inat she plaintiffcould not recover for the flour stoles
inasmuch a • that was a distinct felony independent of .tat,. t.
Geo. 1. ; he could have damages only for that shish was
dog-eyed or damaeed. Me further mentioned e case before
Mr. Justine Le Blanc at York, where-that Judge had decided,
that a party could slot recover for furniture stolen from a
dwelling house that bad been begun to be demolished in a
riot.
Lord Eilenlvorough.—lf it were unconnected with the act
of demolishing, I slionld certainly be of the same opinion.
Ihe C Sergeant further referred to Read v. Clarke,
(7 T. R. 496 ) for the
.partial demolition of the house of a
Quaker, who would's:el illuminate for one of the victories of
land et. Vincent.
Lord Ellenborough.—i was counsel in the cause, and i re-
coil( et that it was held not to be a Iveginning to demolish,
because having the power to demolish if' they the crowd
went away without prosecutitig their purpose; they abandoned
it altogether.
The Co 11111 l on Sergeant added, that in Lord King v. Chant.
bars, the N•11111t` point had been deter ' Lord Ellenborough
then tatetemitig, " the acts of the mob must indicate a purpose
to demolish the house." In the present case, the purpose was
act to demolish the house, but to obtain arms and to liberate
their leeiter.
Lord Ellenborangh referred to the evidence of lioimettud
I,3l(liald, for the tlyelarationti of the rioters, remarking that
the question was. whether their purpose was not
.10 111111 down
and &moiled' the house, had they nut been nitrified k It-attune
• that smote Watson had made his esteem ? They bed a.gu
)
conti.mpotimt that which came within tin, Art. 11 LOrd-
ship lidded. that he show.; retl4 pu the jolty to 411 V. ide
the
demise', for lie arms u.jm e: au.l thr those Motets. is water
that ;1t Cane tttttt Sers.calim afterwards, it he thought
fit, ITIO, use Court npon the ; met
Mr. Gurney submitted, that as it was clear upon the evi-
deuce that the arms returned to the were marked in