The National Register.
London, England, 1822-04-15 00:00:00

1..11; INTELLIGENCE.

corwr or KING' s nt:Ncti.
11411NESDAY, ATltil.
This day the thief Justice sat at Guildhall to try
causes. Several were called on, but in consequence of
the absence of the parties, were passed over.
ling NTUI( e. taI!pWAY.
Mr. Seed*.lt, for the plaintiff, stated., that this was an
action of assault. His client us a gi.lllli.llolll belonging
to the establishment of the Surrey Tbeatre,witere, amongst
other duties which he hail to perform, was that of a
Ranee'. The &tend int also belonged to the saute este-
blisl tit, in a hich lie held Cie situation of ballet-master,
anJ piinriilal been in pantomimic performances.
Mr. Yawl Wreiteli, commonly called Signor Paulo,
who was present on the night in tptestion, heard a ifig:11111•
oriw between the plaimitiff and deli ',dant as 10 110'ir
teapot live merits in their procession; heard the plaintiffs
fr.:ly he could be hark. il for GPI. as a better (Lower than
the defendant. Tht• pasties were Kitting on oppo,ltr sides
.$1 a table, and aitness saw die *plaintiff stretch nut his
finger towards defendant's fare. This was before defen-
dant struck him. His linger went near detilmdatit's nose ;
fill Which defendant struck him, first with his fist, and then
stick, winch he had in his hand.
The waiter of the coffee-bowie was in the coffee-roam
at the time, and heard snub aggravating language pass
Li-tweet' the parties—heard plaintiff tell defendant some
in:* his boss danced pretty aril; and asked abet master be
(the defendant) had retained to leach them I 'f he defen-
dant, in reply, raid he had a littic, git I, four years old, who
would dance better than time plaintiff. 'l'ltis witness also
saw the plaintiff point his finger towards defendant's face
latnre defendant struck him.
Jull. son appeared for the defendant.
'l' he Chief Justice commented on the evidence which
had been given. which, his Lordship said, haft it in doubt
who committed the first assault, us the pointing of the
f tiger alluded to constituted an assault in law. He left it
to the Jury to say whether, in this ease, a shilling da-
umAges would not be quite suflicieut ro meet the justice of
flit case.
The Jury, withont hesitation, four.tl a Verdict fur the
plaintiff—Dawages, Is. costa la.
DISI'LT V. lIFAIME.
This was an action to recover damages for a malicious
prosecution. The. doe firation set forth, that the defen.
(tint, intending lo injure the plaintiff, unlawfully, malt-
and a mthoiat 1t4%011 or probable cause, Mitt out
eii indictment, charging that the plaintiff, being .examined
by Mr. Coiliotitlge on the execntion of a %tit tit iininiry,
upon an action bra light by Britlues v. hi arne.. t..i‘viy
sa are that he, the plaintiff, did nut go away Intl a boa tit
lace, afier 401. had been paid.
The question the Jury had to decide was, abet:ter there
WM. 111011111. k lonise for the intlietnietit fur petiory.
The Lord (turf Justice, in his t hinge, Called the atten•
Goo of the Jury to the natnre of the action. It might be
said the plaintiff Hall not committed prrjuly, but the mere
Oct of pi vier' ing aY ititlicutient was trot soifietent to war-
rant ter Jury in giving tlainaLea. Although a prosecution
blight out teal to ctvlyietilnt, it was in saute inatet,ces
almost unavoidable, and lilt to be con•idt Rd malicious.
On the trial of the tudis intent against the plaintiff for the
alleged crime of pei.inly in that Court, the prosecution
failed upon informality, relating to son:e tornitq proceed-
ing-, and the plaintiff could not he lotto ,1 guilty. The Jury
ere to inquire whetlier there was or was nut reasonable
came for preferring the indict mem, and it they considered
the proceeding malicious, they would gate temperate
tiatitages.
The Jury foetid a vereact for the plaintiff—Damages