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

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

such a way, with splinters of glass, ege. as to show that they
had been used as a mean% of demolition of the windows, &e.,
the jury would infer that those not retiorned (or stolen, as the
Counsel on the other side contended) had been employed fur
the same purpose.
The Common Sergeant insisted that there was not sufficient
evidence to show even that the arms returned to the
plaintiff had been used in demolishing the house of the ;dale-
tiff. That they had been so used afterwards to other houses
would not bring them within the Act.
Mr. Robert Newman was then called, in order to show,
that the plaintiff had treated the fact of taking the arms as a
sobstantive felony. For this purpose he produced the record
of the conviction of Cashman ; but on cross-examination he
said that the prisoner was prosecuted by the city of London,
not by the plaintiff Lord Ellcnborough declared, that if the
fact were shown to he otherwis4t would make no difference.
Though a man might have been indicted for the felony and
convicted, it did not fix the character of the offence as appli• d
to others. It was no less a felony because it was accompanied
by other and higher crimes ; in Mr. Hntehins's case it was
not less a robbery because that robbery was followed up or
perpetrated by murder.
Mr. Gurney, in his reply, called open the jury, that the
' arms lost, valued at 0111. were all takes for the purpose of
demolition, although they might be applied afterwards to
other purposes.
Lord Ellenborough summed up, and observed that by the
Riot Act, that which before was a mere trespass at common
law, had Men erected into a felony, fir the more effectual
protection of private property. Of course the remedy by
action against the offenders was tale( n away, and that against
the 'smelled (all the inliabitantv being as it were pledge II for
the good behaviour of each other) was giyru in its stead.—
The primary object had been to obtain arms ; afterwards to
obtain the liberation of young Watson ; and it seemed un-
doubted by the witnesses. that had he not escaped, the mob
would have demolished the house. The arms they used as
instruments of destruction against the building, and they
were no: taken away for the mere purpose of obtaining as
much money as they would sell for.
The jury divided the damage as stated in the opening of
Mr. Gurney ; but they expressed a clear opinion, that the
arms were all taken in prosecution of the purpose of
lion.
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 1,2911. 13s. MI
BRANDER AND POTTS C. WOOD AND •NOTHF.R.
An action, precisely similar, hronght by the plaintiffs, who
are gunsmiths in the Nlinories. They claimed 7521.105. ltd. ;
being 621. 2s. 5(1. for the repair of the dwelling house, 341.
I Is. lid. for danianaged guns, Ike. and 6551. 17s. for arum
taken away.
Ile Common Serjeant again urged his argument, that the
Lord
was not demolition, but the proctoring of arms ; but
Lord Ellenborough was of a contrary opinion, and the jury
concurring with his Lordship, a verdict was found fur the
plaintiffs.

REA t SAME.
In this cue the plaintiff, also a gunsmith in the Minories,
recovered 9421. b. 4d. It appeared in evidence that neither
the pl ' 'ff nor any of his servaids lived in the house, and
the Common Sergeant contended that it was vot therefore
" his dwelling house," as alleged in the declaration.
Mr. Gurney, on the other band, produced a lease to the
plaintiff's father, and the probate of his will giving it to his
son ; Ind Lord Ellenhorough seemed to be of opinion that it
did not satisfy the allegation : he, however, saved the paint,
and the plaintiff obtained a verdict subject to the discussion
of it.