The National Register.
London, England, 1808-12-04 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov'. 241.
JOHNSON, V. COOKE.
Th;• was an action to recover damages. for an assault
committed under the following eircumstanCes.:—The plain-
la is a soldier, the defendant also formerly, belonged.to the
army. Ott the tad of October last the parties met at a
public-house, the Black-Horse and Windmill, Whilechapel.
They were seated in the parlour among several inhabitants
of the neighbourhood, and the conversation turned upon
the Convention in Portugal. Johnson expressed himself
like many other great men, very much displeased with the
conduct of the British Generals ; and Navin,*ome know-
ledge of the arts, drew two figures on the ti -';10e with chalk
one he descr;bal to be Sir Ilew Dalrymple, and the other
Bonaparte throwin p.;:iineas into Sir Mew's mouth. This
caricature causA ou phiinti':f's loyalty to be questioned,
chiefly by Cooke, who discharged a copious shower of
porter in the face of Johnson, and rising from his seat at
the• same time knocked him down. The plaintiff was de-
scribed to be a little man compared with Cooke : and after
he had recovered from the blow, he complained that he
had been degraded as a soldier, and requested Cooke to
procure a couple of Swords, or sticks at least, that his
wounded honour might be defended upon' equal terms. It
did not appear That the combatants afterwards met in the
bloody field of battle, and the Plaintiff brow "ht the present
action to heal the breach which the defendant's fist had
made in his Valliant face. After witnesses bad proved these

facts,
Mr. Serjeant Cockel said he was sorry this action had
been brought into Court, because it was .a pot-house quar-
rel. If the plaintiff had been contented with the'btow he
had received, he would have been better off than he could
he with the law at his hack. The plaintiff considered him-
self as much entitled to make a speech upon the Conien-
lion of Cintra as the learned Members of the Common
Council of the City of Lendon (a laugh) and hi intruded
upon the company by boasting that he had. mounted the
deadly breach, (although he had seen no more than Major
Sturgeon') and by abuse compelled the defendant to knock
him down. The teamed serjeunt recollected that the pre-
sent Lord Chancellor once tried an assault cause in the
Common Pleas, in which the plaintiff; hr provoking lan
guage, had received a bluw froni the dzSendant which,

--141 ML

I);-:C. 4.

knocked out one of his tcalt. The Jury gave sixpence
damages. Lord Jdon called the plaiatill before he left
the Court, and observed to him, I recommend lon, if )on
value your teeth, to keep a good tongue ill your head, 14
I you do not, you will not have a stump tell. The plai,.-
41 in the present case stood in saniesitaat.on ;he had
provoked the defendant by abuse, and the Jury ought not
1%) think of giving damages.
Sir James Mansfield prevented the Ltlinied Serieant front
calling witnesses in support of the defendant's case. lk
told the Jury that they were the best judges of the case
which ought not to have been brought into a Court otitis-
lice. An avault had, however, been proved, and Jaw
the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, which was all he
could expect.
The Jury instantly found a verdict for the plaintiff, da-
inairbes One Shilling.

SITTINGS AT GUILDHALL, LONDON, Nov. 30.

COTTER ELL V. wttsn, `NT.

This was an action against a late Sheriff of London, by
the Sword Bearer of the Corporation, to estahlisit a right
which he claimed of having three hottles•of wine per diem,
for home consumption, during the continuance Of the Old
Bally Sessions. To es;ahlish this claim the City Butler
was called, who proved• it had been the practice, with very
frw exceptions, for the last twenty years, that the Sword
Bearer, beyond the wine drank at his table, should take
home three bottles per diem for home drinking.
For the Defendant, Mr. barrow said, although this
practice it was true had obtained, it was mere matter of
curtesy, and not of presumptive right. The Sword Bearer
was an Officer of the Lord Mayor, and not of the Sheriff's,
and tnererore could have no right or claim against them.
During the Sessions there was a plentiful table kept for his
use. At the beginning of every Shrievalty a list was pre-
sented of all the Officers entitled to privileges, and in
'his list the Sword Bearer's three bottles were not included.
The custom ilad arisen when wine was not a third of its
present price, and was then overlooked as being too
trifling to notice. During the Shrievalty of Sir W. Staines,
he chose rather to dine at the Sword Bearer's table than at
the Lord Mayor's, and finding jellies. tarts, trifles, &c. he
reformed the table to plain joints of sirloin and rounds,
observing, that the remains would better suit his large
family in the gaol, than the Tess substantial, but more de-
corative parts of the table.
Lord Ellenborough thought that the Plaintiff had proved
no prescriptive right, and under his advice the Jury found
a verdict for the Defendant.