The Sun.
London, England, 1806-12-10 00:00:00

CER I IFICAT

. .
Dec. 30.. Joshua Morgan, Noyaddsach, Ll4nrair ar y brin,
Carmartlicnshire, limber-merchant.
Thomas Simpson and Nottingnam Simpson, Northallerton,
Yorkshire, merchants and co-partners. .
fames Partington, Fen-coUrt, Fenchurch. street, London,

• baker.
Thomas Hobson, Louth, Lincolnshire, futrw.
Samuel Davies, Manchester, dealer in cotton twist and weft.

PARTNERSHIPS DIS,iOLVED.
. .
lohn-Maule and I ohn Holt, Peter-street, Soho, smiths.
Joseph Booth, I,lln Bridgwood, and Thomas Booth, Lane.
end, ,Staffordsaire, potters. .
lames Lees, Robert Lees, and lohn Watkin,. Manchester,
cottoetlealers.
Samuel Gundry, Samuel Hood, and Samuel Symcs, Brid-

poit,yoesetshire, and' bag-, manu tacturers.
Aistroppe. Stovin and lo,ialk •Curthine Fin-het, Kinoton-
n pop- Hul I, 'Actor:nes at Law.
janws Kaye and loshua Kaye, Leeds, sacking manufacturers.
Henry Smith and lames Holton, William-street, ray's- inn-
lane,• coach-makers.

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, Dec.g.

ISAACS V. FLOWER.

The Plaintiff, a driver of a Stage-coach froth Lon-
don to Edmonton, brought this aCtion against the
Defendant for an assault and battery,. committed
upon hip.). by the Defendant, at Edmonton, 'in Ja-
nuary last.
Mr: PARK stated the'case, with some, strong ani-,
inadversions upon the conduEt of the Defendant,
who was a stock-broker, and a,man of fortune, and
one from whom gentlemanly conduel might rather'
have been -expeCted than that he should be guilty of
a brutal assault. The, witnesses for the Plaintiff
proved that Isaacs stopped with his coach at -the
Angel Inn, at Edmonton,
,and went to deliver the
Evening Paper there ; when the Defendant, who
was a Member of a Subseription-rbom for reading
the Evening Paper, and was waiting to see the news, ,
came out and desired to have the Paper. Isaacs re-
fused to give it him, because he said his instructions
were to deliver it always at the bar first. The De-
fendant then began abusing him, called him liar,and
thief, and struck him twice, and afterwards spit in
his face ; upon which Isaacs gave hint a slap in the
face, .and palled off his great coat hi order to turn
to and thrash him. When the 'Defendant had re-
ceived the slap in the face, he said,. that is all I
wanted,' and turning to a,rnan who was sitting upon
the box, and now appeared as a witness ter the'
Plaintiff, he,asked him his name, to which the wit-
ness replied, he should not give it him then ; that
the coachman had served him pYoperly, and if he
had knycked his head off he would have done right:
The Mistress:of the.Angel'lnn proved that some
words passed between the Plaintiff and Defendant
near the bar of the house, when the Defendant came
and appealed to her husband, whether be was not to
have the paper;, they went out together, and shortly
atter the cOachman came in, and said Flower was,a
filthy beast, for. he had spit in his face. She observed
he had some wet on his face, the appearance of
which confirme'd.his assertion. She did not see the
blows pass..
A Lady who was in the coach at the time, con-
firmed the statement of the 'first witness, as to the
Defendant striking-the Plaintiff.
The Defendant' afterwards preferred a bill of in-
ditStment against the'Plaintiff for an assault, but did
not appear to prosecute it.
Mr. GARROW, for the Defendant, addressed the
Jury very forciblY up-on the improbability of the
story told by the first witness•for the Plaintiff, who
represented Mr. Flower as all brute and savage, and
the coachthan as a most pet-fed gentleman. 'His
conduCt upon being 'spit upon was more like a petit
maitre than a coachman.—" Oh the filthy 'brute,
he has spit in my face,"
.was not like the language of
such a man ; he would rather have said " the fellow
thought he could spit upon me; but rturned wand
drubbed him handsomely." He called a Witness
who had been a servant of the Defendant, and who
said, that upon coming up with a lanthorn to the
house, he saw the Plaintiff come out of the Angel
Inn, and after some abusive language, he struck his
master seven or eight times. He said the coach was
a good way frem the Inn: He had been to West-
minster-hall to give evidence before the Grand Jury.
He did not see the beginning of the fray,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH observed, that this witness
did not in faU contradid what the. ether witnesses
had stated, for. it. happened after the time of which
they were speaking.
The Jury,- after a few moments consultation, re-
tfirned_a verdiCt for the Plaintiff—Damages 501. •