The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 4.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Murphy.)
ASSAULTS BY A GENTLEMAN ON THE TURF.-IN THE
MATTER OF JOHN HENRY NOLAN.
This insolvent, who had betted on the turf, applied to
be discharged under the act.
Mr. Macrae opposed on the part of Mr. Morris and
his wife, and also for a Mr. Smith. Mr. Sargood sup-
ported.
The complaint was that the insolvent was indebted
for damages in two actions for assaults, and that the
injury complained of was malicious. It appeared that
he lodged at the house of Mr. Morris, who is a printer,
in Tennison-street, York-road, Lambeth. In the
early part of February he went home at past twelve
o'clock at night, and asked Mrs. Morris, who lighted
hies up stairs and gave him a candle, whether the
" felon " in the first floor had come home, as he should
not sleep there again. He was informed that he had
not come home. Without the slightest provocation
he struck Mrs. Morris and blackened both her eyes,
and she declared would have thrown her over the
stairs had not her dress given way. She cried "mur-
der," and her lodger Mr. Smith (the other opposing
creditor) came to her assistance. The insolvent attacked
him, and whilst on the stairs struck him with a poker,
and he was felled to the ground and bled profusely.
Both Mrs. Morris and Mr. Smith were attended by a
surgeon, and confined some days. An action was brought
and tried at the Surrey Assizes. In each case the jury
awarded 751. damages, which, with the costs, amounted
to a considerable sum, and for which the insolvent was
now in custody.
The question raised was whether there was "malice,"
in order to bring the case within the act of Parliament ?
It was stated that the insolvent was tipsy at the time he
committed the assaults.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy thought there was malice
in law, but he wished to hear the evidence of the parties,
whereupon. Mrs. Morris and Smith were examined.
The Insolvent stated to his counsel that he had been
to a dinner party, and was intoxicated when he returned
home.
Mr. Macrae wished to know whether the insolvent
was not connected with a gambling-house ?
In answer to questions,
The Insolvent stated that he was not connected with
a gambling-house. He had betted, and on the last Ches-
ter Cup lost 1101. He had betted on a good many
races. He had bought tickets at betting-offices, and had
lost money.
Mr. Macrae prayed a judgment for the damages
awarded in two cases of gross assault, and contended that
the injuries had been maliciously inflicted. It would be
an abuse of the act to allow a person who had dissipated
his means in betting transactions to wipe out the damages
and costs by going through this court, without a serious
judgment.
Mr. Sargood insisted that there was no malice in law.
and that the case could not come under the act of Parlia-
ment. The insolvent was drunk at the time, and not in
his senses.

Mr. Commissioner Murphy expressed himself clearly
of opinion that there was malice in law proved against
the insolvent, and that intoxication was no palliation or
extenuation. Here was a woman who, without any
provocation, had her eyes blackened, and a lodger, who
came to see what was the row, felled to the ground
with a poker. If it was not malice, then, as the song
said, "it was forlove he was knocked down." Malice had
been made out, and for the damages awarded, the insol-
vent would receive a judgment of six months.
Judgment accordingly.