The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-26 00:00:00

CHURCHILL V. FARRIER.

The plaintiff is a farmer, and the defendant a corn-factor
in this city. The Action was brought to recover the sum
of 341. 6e. 4(1., the amount of 24 quarters of barley,
which the plaintiff had sold to the defendant. The de-
fendant admitted that the barley had been sent in to his
warehouse, and that the sum now sought to be recovered
was the price agreed to be paid; but the defence was, that
the barley had been bought by sample, and when it was
compared with the sample, it was found not to be so
good, or worth as much by 28. a quarter; the defendant,
therefore, refused to pay fur it, and told the plaintiff he might
take it away again. Several witnesses proved that the bulk
sent in to the defendant's warehouse was inferior to the
sample, and the Jury, under the direction of the Learned
Judge, returned a verdict for the defendant. It being
market day a great number of farmers were in Court, who
appeared to take considerable interest in the decision.

lIARPICII. V. W!I.LS.

Mr. JIRYIS (Mr. CITRWOOD with him) stated that
this was an action to recover compensation in damages en
two grounds—first, for a trespass, and second for en assault.
The plaintiff is a butcher, living ut Ensham in this county;
the defendant was the beadle and constable of that parish.
The plaintiff was in possession of a garden at the back of
his mother's house, and great family disputes arose in con-
sequence, as it was alleged that that conveyance of it
had not been properly obtained. His mother (who was
quite blind) and his sister lived in the cottage adjoining
the garden, the latter was a female of most irritable tem-
per. On the sth of May the plaintiff was in the garden
planting some beans, when his sister came in, and hung
some wet linen on the gooseberry bushes. He told her to
remove it, but she refused, and he therefore took a spade
and knocked it on the ground. She complained of this
conduct, and said she would go and obtain a constable,
and shortly afterwards the defendant Wells made his ap-
pearance in the garden. He was accompanied by a man
named Wilkins, who advised the defendant to retire, as,
no breach of the peace having been committed, they were
not authorised to interfere. The defendant answered that
he was determined to take the plaintiff into custody, as lie
had been ordered to do so by his mother, who went in
fear of her life from him. The plaintiff said, you have
no business here, and if you dare to put your hand
upon me, I will chop you down with the spade.
The defendant being aware of the disputes that ex-
feted in the family, went hack again for further authority
from the plaintiff's mother, on his return he called out,
4, all bands assist," and pulled out of his pocket a pair of
handcuffs. He then held up his staff, and was about to
collar him, when the defendant aimed a blow at hint with
a spade, which knocked him down, (and for which blow
the plaintiff was tried in the Criminal Court yesterday,
and sentenced to three months' imprisonment and hard la-
bour). No doubt, said Mr. Jervis, in the act the plain-
tiff had violated the law, but lie was now suffering the
punishment of the law. When the defendant received
the blow he said, " this is just what I wanted, I will give
you a tickler for it." He then took the plaintiff before
a Magistrate, and he was committed to prison. These
were the grounds of his present action.

Several witnesies deposed to the funs opened by the
Learned Counsel.

Mr. Tauarrow. for the defendant, submitted there was
no evidence to go to the Jury, to prove the trespass; it
was nece►sary to show that the garden was in the exclusive
possession of the plaintiff, which he contended bad not been
done. With respect to the assault, the constable was only
acting in obedience to the orders he received from the plain-
tiff's mother, a.poor blind old woman, who went in fear
of her life from his violence ; he was only, he said, acting
in obedience to such orders when he received the murder-
ous blow from the plaintiff, which in all probability would
injure him for life. The Jury had been informed that the
plaintiff bad been indicted, and was tried yesterday for that
blow, and.sentenced to three' months imprisonment, yet this
very man was now the plaintiff in an action to recover
damages for an assault. He, Mr. Taunton had plenty of
witnesses, but he would not call them, as he was sure the
Jury would treat this scandalous cause in the Sway it de-
served.

Mr. Justice BOSANQUICT summed up. His Lordship
observed, that in his opinion a more improper or un-
worthy action was never brought into a court of justice.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the de-
fendant.