The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-05 00:00:00

PEEL versus PRINCIPLE.

" There is the difficulty. You may get from me a pledge
to a principle—l will approach this question unfettered. I
will not be deceived by principles."—Sir R. Peel's Speech on
the Address.

" No principles for me 1" cries honest Peel,
" They're awkward things in which I never deal."
Sir Bob is right—for, tied up in a noose,
How can a statesman play at Fast and Loose ?
There must be room to turn, and twirl, and twist,
And chop and change about, just as you list.
The only principle that's worth a penny,
Is that which actuates the spinning jenny.

THE PAINS versus THE PLEASURES
OF HOPE.

" Let the House see how extremely cautious and guarded
were the words—' I entertain hopes.' Now, in answer to this
passage, the Address merely said, ' We participate in the
hope.' But then, said the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)
It is wrong in his Majesty's Ministers to entertain any
hopes at all.' "—( Cheers and laughter.)—Vide Lord John
Russell's Speech last night.

The country is going to ruin,
As fast as a country can,
In all quarters mischief's brewing
(Fomented, of course, by Dan),
We're a wretched, an undone nation,
Predestined, ere long, to fall;
Then how cruel, in such situation,
• For Whigs to hope at all !

Why don't they look glum like the Tories,
And mourn o'er our triumphs past,
And take their oath that the glories
Of Albion are all o'ercast ?
The Devil a hope have we,
For lower we scarce can fall,
Then how base, in their party glee,
For Whigs to hope at all

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

HARRISON V. ALMOND.

This was an action for an assault and false imprisonment.
The plaintiff was the wife of a Mr. Harrison, mho occupied
premises belonging to the defendant, at Stepney. About a
year and a half previously Harrison had deserted his wife, leav-
ing some arrears of rent due, and on the 13th of October last,
the defendant was informed by one of the other lodgers that
Mrs. Harrison was removing some vine and apple trees, upon
which he called to a police officer to take her into custody.
The police officer appeared unwilling to do so, but the defen-
dant insisted on it, and she was accordingly taken to the sta-
tion-house, and kept there with improper characters for about
two hours. It was for this outrage that the present action was
brought to recover such damages as the Jury should consider
the plaintiff entitled to.
Mr. PLATT appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. BUTT for
the defendant.
Witnesses were called, who proved the facts as stated by
the Counsel for the plaintiff, and the Jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff.—Damages, 101.
COLE V. HOWELL.

This was an action for an assault and false imprisonment.
The ArTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. RICHARDS)
stated the case. The plaintiff was a respectable tradesman,
carrying on the business of a hair-dresser near the Edgeware-
road ; and on the evening of the 14th of November last, he
proceeded to the residence of a customer, a Mr. Roberts, in
Oxford-terrace, and was about to knock at the door when a
boy told him a gentleman wanted to speak to him. The
plaintiff accordingly proceeded to the door of a house a few
yards off, where he found the defendant standing. He was
immediately collared by the defendant, who struck him se-
veral blows with a horsewhip, and gave him also a violent
blow in the mouth. A policeman then came up, and the
plaintiff was then given in charge by Mr. Howell, for having
indecently exposed himself, and also for having acted in a si-
milar way three weeks previously to a lady (a Mrs. Noble)
who was then present. He was then taken to the station-
house at Paddington, and thence to the Magistrate at the
Marylebone Office, who held him to bail,to answer any indict-
ment that might be preferred against him. No indictment
was preferred. It was quite clear that the charges were ut-
terly unfounded; and he trusted the Jury would give such
ample damages as would mark the sense of the defendant's im-
proper conduct.

Witnesses having proved the assault,
Mr. PLATT addressed the Jury for the defendant. He com-
plained that the action had been brought against Mr. Howell
instead of the lady who had appealed to him for protection,
and had complained of the improper conduct of the plaintiff.
No witnesses who actually witnessed the assault were called.
The policeman did not come up until after it had been com-
mitted, and Mr. Howell admitted that he had horsewhipped
the plaintiff; and in his (Mr. Platt's) opinion he richly de-
served it. Why had not the plaintiff called some witnesses
who saw the assault committed ? Because, whoever saw the
assault would be able to speak to the circumstances which oc-
casioned it, and would satisfy the Jury that Mr. Howell was
perfectly justified in acting as he had done. The charge was
preferred by Mrs. Noble; and Mr. Howell, with the feelings
of a man and a gentleman, instantly resented it ; and he
trusted the Jury would, under such circumstances, treat the
present action with the contempt it merited.
Lord DENMAN having summed up, the Jury, after deliberat-
ing for a few minutes, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.—
Damages, 501.