The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-02 00:00:00

CLARKE V. SMITHIES AND WIFE.

Mr. HUMPHREYS stated the case. It was an action
brought by Henry Clarke to recover compensation for an
assault committed by Esther, the wife of the defendant.
He (Mr. Humphreys) saw a smile upon the face of his
Learned Friend the Attorney-General ; but if he and the
Jury were aware of what sort of a person Esther was, they
would not treat the matter!so lightly. She was the wife of
a retired serjeant of the Guards, who, to his other comforts,
added a termagant wife. Smithies had some houses at
Chelsea, and the plaintiff, who rented one of them, had
been subjected to a series of annoyances, which, so long as
they were confined to words, were disregarded. At length,
however, his violence broke out ; and after having ex-
hausted upon him the whole vocabulary of vituperation
which she had learned in the camp, she finished by beating
him in the most extraordinary manner.—(Much laughter.)
She laid hold of him by the lip, shook and cuffed him
about the head ; and, not satisfied with her own prowess,
this Penthesilea set on her daughter and a neighbour, and
the two subalterns followed up the assault most vigorously.
—( Renewed laughter.) It was for this most unprovoked
assault, and in order to prevent a repetition of the an-
noyances to which he was subjected, that the plaintiff had
brought the present action.
Jane Ross Canning—Lives at No. 9, Grosvenor-place,
Chelsea. The plaintiff resides next door to me, and the
defendants at a short distance, About half-past eight
o'clock on the evening of the 27th July, I heard a great
disturbance and looked out of the window, and saw the
plaintiff and Mrs. Smithies ; she called him rogue, vaga-
bond, and thief, and several other abusive names. Smithies
was formerly in the Guards, and is now a musician at one
of the theatres. Clarke said "Go in you insulting, abusive
woman ;" and Mrs. Smithies immediately caught him by
the mouth and struck him on the head several times.
Clarke did not strike her, and at length Mr. Scaggs and
Mrs. Smithies' daughter pulled her away, when she cried
" Let me come at him, and I'll tear his eyes out."—(A laugh.)
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--MY hus-
band is a clerk. I never performed at any theatre. Smithies
has a good many houses in Gregory-street and Union-street.
I hear fire-arms discharged—it was a very little cannon,
that cost a penny. I heard no complaints of the annoyance
caused by Mr. Clarke.
Mary Ann Kinsbury—Lives in Gregory-street, Pimlico.
Saw Mrs. Smithies strike Clarke ; she caught him by the
throat and lip. Saw John Slack strike Clarke a violent
blow on the chest ; and saw Emma Smithies run at Mrs.
Clarke and claw her down the neck. _ .

Mary Ann Kingsbury, mother to the last witness, also
saw the assault committed. Her evidence was to a similar

effect.

James Judd—l saw Clarke and Mrs. Smithies on the
evening in question.
Well, tell us what you saw ?—The first thing I saw was
what I heard.—(Great laughter.) Mrs. Smithies was
abusing Mr. Clarke.
Why was she abusing him ?—That's just what I wanted
to know myself.—(Laughter.) There was a wonderful
deal of blood about Mr. Clarke's face, and Mrs. Smithies'
hand was full of blood. The last word of abuse she used
was " a dirty monkey," and Clarke's reply was, " Mrs.
Smithies, go in, I am ashamed of you ;" when she was im-
mediately upon him.—( Laughter.) She pitched into him
with both her fists.—(Roars of laughter.)
Christopher Smith witnessed the assault. Mrs. Smithies
was in a very great passion, and it would have taken a deal
of water to cool her.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury for the
defendant, and complained in vary strong terms of the
abusive manner in which Counsel on the other side had been
instructed to speak of the defendants, who were most re-
spectable people, and had always conducted themselves in
the most peaceable and creditable manner. He would sa-
tisfy the Jury, by the evidence of several witnesses, that
the first assault had been committed by the plaintiff, merely
because Mrs. Smithies remonstrated with him upon the
impropriety of allowing his son to fire cannon, by which
the neighbourhood was very much alarmed.
John Stark, a labourer, resides next door to the plaintiff
and heard complaints made of annoyance from the firing of
a small cannon by plaintiff's son. Plaintiff's son was firing
the cannon on the evening in question, and Mrs. Smithies
went to remonstrate with the plaintiff, as a little girl had
fainted from the noise, when he told her to be off, or he
would kick her off his premises. Saw Clarke strike Mrs.
Smithies, and also her daughter, when witness interfered,
and offered to fight him, but he declined. Mrs. Smithies
was acting on the defensive, and witness believed she
scratched his face. Witness was in Mr. Cubitt's employ-
, ment, and plaintiff was a clerk there, and in consequence of
a representation made by plaintiff to Mr. Cubitt, witness
was next day discharged. Witness visits at defendant's,
but is not courting the daughter.
Mrs. Charlotte Skeggs—Saw plaintiff's son firing a can-
non on the evening in question, and a little girl fainted.
Mrs. Smithies interfered. The evidence of the assault
given by this witness was similar to that of the last witness.
Emma Smithies, daughter to the defendant, also deposed
that the first abuse and assault was committed by the plai
tiff upon her mother. Witness was also struck, but her
mother never touched him. As soon as her mother went
towards him, he ran back.
James Skeggs witnessed the assault, which was com-
menced by the plaintiff. Did not see Mrs. Smithies strike
at all. Was in the employment f Mr. Cubitt, but was
dismissed in consequence of Clarke's representations.
John Smithies, son to the defendant, also swore that the
plaintiff first assaulted his mother.
Mr. HEI4IPHREYS having replied,
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE summed up. The Jury would
agree with him that a great deal more time had been ex-
pended upon the case than it merited, and what was more
important ten witnesses were brought before them, six of
whom swore one way, and four directly the contrary, and all
about what was really a trumpery matter. Even if they
believed that Clarke struck first, that would not be a justi-
fication, as it had not been pleaded ; and if they believed
the defendant struck Clarke, they must find a verdict for
him, with such damages as might appear to them reasonable.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—ls. damages.