The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH-DEC. 11.
BROWN V. TEMPLE.

Mr. Hugh Hill (with whom was Mr. Willes), for the
plaintiff, stated that in fact the Corporation of London
was the plaintiff in this case, the action being brought in
the name of its officer, Mr. Brown. The object of the
action was to check a practice now and then resorted to,
but which was very objectionable, of men acting as
brokers in the City of London without being duly autho-
rised to assume that character. The corporation had
the power of granting or refusing licenses, and it exer-
cised this power for the protection of the public. There
was no pretence to complain of the mode in which this
power of the corporation was exercised, and the cost of
the license was too small to be complained of, it was
only 40s. The defendant had been a clerk and traveller
in a very respectable house in the linen-drapery business,
but in 1851 he thought fit to act as a broker, without
first taking out a license for that purpose. here had
been an Act of Parliament prohibiting persons from so
acting without a license, under a penalty of 251. It was
found by experience that this penalty, so great were the
profits made by the brokers in good business, was insuffi-
cient to prevent people from breaking the law. Another
statute, therefore, increased the penalty to 1001. for each
offence ; and this defendant had, by sixteen different
acts, subjected himself to sixteen different penalties.
Mr. James (with whom was Mr. Hawkins) said that
he had had a communication with the City Solicitor on
this subject, and that the corporation was willing to act
with great consideration towards the defendant. He
understood that the purpose of this action was merely
the enforcement of the law, and that there was no de-
sire whatever to oppress the defendant with severe pen-
alties. The defendant was willing to allow a verdict to
be taken against him for one penalty of 1001., and he
understood that the city would be satisfied with that.
Mr. Hugh Hill said that the corporation was not all
disposed to act with vindictiveness, but only to vindicate
what was a very just and necessary law.
Lord Campbell said that the corporation had acted
with perfect propriety. The law was a beneficial law,
and the officers of the corporation had properly deter-
mined on enforcing it.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff on one
count in the declaration.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-DEC. 11.

MITCHELL AND WIFE V. CRASSWALLER AND ANOTHER

This was an action to recover damages for injuries
sustained by the plaintiff's wife, who was knocked down
by the defendant's cart, and for consequent expenses in-
curred by the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded not
guilty, and that the cart was not theirs ; and, in the
course of the trial were permitted, under the new prac-
tice, to add a plea, that at the time of the accident the
cart was not under the care of the defendant's servant.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Garth were the plOtitiff's
counsel ; and Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Petersdorff
the defendant's.

It appeared that on the Bth September last, Mrs.
Mitchell, whose husband is an iron bedstead maker, was
crossing Grafton-street, near Tottenham-court-road, with
her child, when she was knocked down and severely in-
jured by the defendant's cart, which the plaintiff's
witnesses said was " flying like an engine ;" but the
defendant's witness said, "if not walking, was going
very gently." It transpired, however, that at the time
the cart was not being used in the defendants' service,
but that the carman, without his employers' knowledge,
was giving their foreman a ride towards his house in
the Caledonian-road ; and a question of law as to the
defendant's liability thereupon arising, the Lord Chief
Justice reserved that for the decision of the Court above,
and left it for the jury to say whether, supposing the de-
fendants were liable, the accident was occasioned by
Mrs. Mitchell's negligence, or that of the defendants'
servants.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs-301. far
the injury sustained by the wife, and 101. for the loss and
expenses sustained by the plaintiff, her husband.

SURREY SESSIONS.--Dec. 11.

Daniel O'Donovan, a priest, was indicted for commit-
ting an assault on ary Murphy.
Complainant said-she was the wife of Michael Murphy,
a labourer. On Friday fortnight she lived with her hus-
band, at a Mrs. Harrington's, in Parker's rents, Snow's-
fields, Bermondsey. A Mrs. Winter and a Mrs. Gee-
han also lodged there, and they were all Catholics. Her
bed was in the kitchen, which they all used. She was
confined about three weeks ago, and the defendant
called upon her and left her a shilling. That was three
nights after she was confined. On the Friday in ques-
tion she had just got out of bed with her child, and was
sitting near the fire, when the defendant entered the
house, and asked her whether she was the woman that
the man fell upon. That had reference to a man who
misconducted himself in the house, and the police
not having power to interfere, the defendant was
sent for, and on his arrival the man hid himself
away. Defendant then asked her in a severe manner
whether the child she had in her arms had been bap-
tised. She replied that it had ; when he asked her whe-
ther he had baptised it. Witness replied, "No ; Mr.
Armstrong baptised it at a Protestant church which she
belonged to." The defendant then said she had sold
her soul to the d evil, and he struck her three times near
the left ear with his umbrella. He appeared very angry,
and asked her whether any ladies had been there. Mrs,
Geehan told him there had, when he asked whether they
brought anything, and on being told they had sent some
bread and coals, he said it was not for her good. Wit-
ness was badly off at the time, and required nourishment.
The defendant said if any one gave her anything she was
to receive it, and thank them for it, but she was not to
pay any regard to them, as they were bad people. He
struck her three times, and cursed her in Irish. He hurt
her very much at the time, and she cried out for mercy.
Witness was weak at the time, having only been re-
cently confined. After he struck her, he told Mrs. Har-
rington, the landlady, to turn the devils out. Her bed
was taken from under her, and she and her child were
compelled to sleep on the bare floor that night.
Mr. Robinson—Did the defendant leave you anything ?
Complainant—He left me a shilling and a good beat-
ing. (Laughter.) Mr. Donovan, when he called upon
me, he rebuked me because I had changed my religion. I
was a Catholic before I was married, but now I am a
Protestant, and Mr. Donovan knows it.
_ _

Mr. Robinson—Did Dr. Armstrong-ever call on you ?
Complainant—No, he did not. My husband called
him in. Mr. Donovan struck me hard with his um-
brella, and told me to go to the seventeen devils.
Mr. Woollett addressed the jury at some length, and
called Mrs. Harrington, Mrs. Winter, and Mrs. Geehan,
who lived in the house, and were present ; but their evi-
dence confirmed complainant's as to the assault, and her
being turned out of bed at the defendant's direction.
The jury, after consulting a few moments, returned a
verdict of Guilty.
Mr. Robinson said that his clients had no wish to
press for any severe punishment.

- The chaiiman (Mr. Puckle) said it gave him great
pain to pass sentence on a person like the defendant,
but the court as well as the jury were satisfied that an
aggravated assault had been committed on a poor and
weak woman. It was, in fact, an act of religious perse-
cution and domineering which could not be tolerated in
this country, and had it not been for the recommenda-
tion of the learned counsel for the prosecution, he should
have committed him to prison with hard labour • but,
under all circumstances, he should fine him 5/. for' the
assault.