The National Register.
London, England, 1822-06-02 00:00:00

Till KING V.

This was an indictment le."minst the di Pendant, one of the
select vestry of the parish ofPaddingtou, for an assault on a
pauper, named John Child.
Mr. Holland stated that the pros( cutor was a poor disabled
man, with a large family. He applied some time ago to the
churchwardens for relief. His wile was lying-in of her fifth
child, and he could obtain DO relief. Ile was 'bid he must get
a note from Mr. Thatcher. He accordingly applied to thc de-
fendant, who struck him. The learned counsel called several
witnesses.

Mr. Reader, no counsel for Mr. Thatcher, said, on the day
when the assault was alleged to ha% e been committed, the man
went for the purpose, not of obtaining relief, but to insult
him. The learned counsel then called

Butler, an inhabitant of Paddington, was in ➢Manor •
place on the day the dispute took place between Mr. Thatcher
and Child. The witness was talking to Thatcher when Child
came up. lie said, ."fom Thatcher, how dare you call me a
pauper e" Thatcher said, " Go about sour business, this is my
private road." his reply was, abed not, Tom Thatcher."
Ile ;loaded his list, and ran his elbow into Thatcher's side.—
A gentile then took place between them, and Child threw
Thatcher twice. Child put his fist in Ids face, COlllll efl hint,
and threw him down twice. Child was not thrown at all.
Cross examined by Mr. Bollard.—He said Thatcher did not
use any improper language, nor did he kick the ran.
Mr. Bollaud, in reply said, much was to be allowed for irri-
tation on the plot of Child, who had been denied relief wilt
fete starving children. It was not lie believed, that a num
wanting assistance would conduct himself as Butler described.
The Lord Chief Justice left the Jury to decide elm had
committed the first assault. If they lielie.ed the first assault
ails committed by Child, in a state of drunkenness.
The July found the defendant not guilty.
THUIIsDAY, MAI 30.
NICHOLSON V.

This was an action by Messrs. Nicholson, who /RC distillers
and rectifiers of British spirits, against the defendiud, a licensed
victualler, to recover I 151. for stock transferred.
Mr. Brougham stated, that the planitiik were respectable
spirit dealers, who had been in the habit of supplying the Pun
Cossack public-house, at Norton Folgate, with liquors. The
house was in the possession of a person mimed Coventry, who
kit it, and the defendaut being desirous of carrying on the bu-
siness, obtallied a lease. He then applied to Mussel. Nicholson
fur a transfer of the spirits. The custom was that the outoiug
tenant transfers to the in-comer the residue of his stuck, and
the distiller accedes to the arrangements. Mr. Smith was ac-
cordingly debited with the amount, 'Adele was 21. d. and he
signed what Ia called a transfer, acknowledging that lie ow,
the amount to the plaintiffs. He was told time defendant had
paid the money to the out- gi•ing tenant, but lie should prove
the defendant acknowledged the debt, stud the Jury would
have no difficulty in finding their verdict fur the
The Common Serg,edit thee addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant, and observed, that the) could not In 1p seeing Ili, client
had been sued in a way muse oppressive. for, iii fuel, he had paid
the moot.), fur which this ucliou was brought. The taut•Aiiiii
""' nut whether he w 4. to 1.,.v Messes. Ist, holsou Ii Si loootrid

171

nod forty-five pounds, but whether ha was to go to gaol, and
rennin storing life. These goods were sold to Coventry,. who
could not be divested of them without some act of his own.—
There was no evidence to chew Coventry sold them to any
person; Coventry was, however, paid by Smith. and the fair
jam's:nee was, that the goods woe sold by Coventry to Smith.
The !mid Chief Jubilee left the Jury to sty, who thee it was
made out that the defendant acknowledged he was debtor to the
plaintiffs. If he did, they nu4lst to give their verdict for the
plaintille. The Jury found fur the pinintin—Damages 2091.