The Sun.
London, England, 1822-05-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 22.
THOMPSON V. SHORT.
Mr. CAMPBELL stated the substance of the declaration,
which set forth, that the plaintiff employed the defendant as
broker to purchase for him 10 shares in the Gas-light Com-
pany-, and that having purchased them for 2821., he repre-
sented that he could not obtain them for less than 3821., by
which he defrauded the plaintiff of 1001. There were other
counts, not imputing fraud, but negligence in the discharge o,
!
the duty of agent, and not buying at the lowest price which
would have been taken.

Mr. SCARLETT detailed the circumstances of the case as
they were proved by the plaintiff's witnesses.
It was sworn by Mr. John Austin, that the plaintiff, who
resides at Olney, in Buckinghamshire, deposited 5001. in, aw
hands to cover the amount of 10 shares in the Gas-light Cara". •
pang, whichrhe had employed the defendant, as his broker, to
purchase. On the 20th September, 1820, Short asked hiin
go with him to Broad-street, and pay 3821.; which he repre.
sented as the sum to be paid for the shares. They went to the
office of Mr. Humphreys, a broker, wheti the witness was
troduced to Dr. Gardiner, who was theveller of shares. tle.
ultimately left 3321. with Humphreys, but. Short was then,
waiting in another office. •
Two clerks of the Gas Light Company swore, that at this
time only 201. was payable on each share, and the premioi°
was 81., so that the sum which should have been received was
2801. to which 21. for a stamp should have been added.
deed, one call of 101. actually was not paid on behalf of Dr'
Gardiner, till the 26th of September, six days after the assign'
ment was completed.
Mr. 111KuRrAT, for the defendant, offered tocalled
Austin never paid more than 2821. For this purpose he c
Dr. Gardiner, who swore that he never received more than thal.
sum (which was admitted by all parties to be true,) and DIT•
Humphreys, who positively swore that no more than that sun
e
ever came to his hands. The accounts given by these two"-
nesses of the transaction did not exactly agree.
Mr. SCARLETT was about to reply, but was stopped bY ,
The Lone CHIEF) USTICE who said the simple question
was, whether the Jury believed' AUstin or Humphreys/ svll6l
was contradicted by the other witness for the defendant ?
The Jury immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff
damages 1001.
ight
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the defendant TILT,.
be ignorant of the fraud, hut he ought to have protected "'"
interests of his principal with greater diligence.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY 22.
ASSAULT.—BOOT V. DUNCAN AND EADEN. •
This was an. action brought by the plaintiff to recover da;
mages for an assault alleged to have bee ,committed by the tvi
defendants. The damages were laid of 3001.
Serjeant VAUGHAN conducted the case for the plaintiff
and from his statement it appeared that the whole of we
parties are persons of respectable station in life, and re"
prove that
sided in the hamlet of Mile-end, New-town. The ply
tiff is a Gentleman retired from business. The defendant
Mr. Duncan, has been a Naval Captain, and is a retireu
shipholder, and Mr. Eaden, the other defendant, is a shiP.;
builder. The two defendants had been concerned in a sti!t
at law, in which, from the temper subsequently manifested' of
did not appear that they were successful. On that trial 31.1:.
Boot, the plaintiff, was subpoenaed as a witness, but not el_
mined, and this appeared to have excited great ill will towards
him him in the mind of Captain Duncan, and his friend,/,..,/,,0,
Eaden, strongly participated in this feeling. It appeareu "
the evidence adduced, that.the assault was committed at a i
rish meeting, in the presence of a great number of persons, ialtii
consisted in Mr. Duncan's having spat upon the plaintiff:
respect to Mr. Eaden, it was not proved that he did more than
join the other defendant in abusing the plaintiff, and he lc'
therefore acquitted.
For the defence, it was urged that the defendant had been P,re";
yoked by most insulting language, and one witness stated t°;1:
he spat on the ground, as if in defiance, and not on the plainu
The CHIEF-JUSTICE said, that from the weight of evidelle
e
it was clear that an assault had been committed, upon the Pl';
tiff; and if the jury disbelieved the evidence offered to prove
provocation, the assault was one of a gross and intemperate ns
ture ; and when they considered that the plaintiff wasp
on, and treated contumeliously, in the presence of 150 perso
it was an assault infinitely worse than a.blow.
The jury deliberated for about a minute, and returned a vet"
diet for the plaintiff—Damages 1501.

~',