The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-05 00:00:00

EVANS V. FLIGHT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was a haber-
dasher, in Marchmont-street, Cavendish-square, against the
defendant, for the sum ofllo/. for which sum his wife was in-
debted to the plaintiff.
MARRYATT conducted the plaintiff's case, and Mr.
GURNEY the defendant's.

It appeared, that the defendant and his wife were separated
for some time antecedent to the incurring of this debt. The
lady had obtained these goods from the plaintiff,. and referred
him to Tier husband for payment. On application to him, he
refused to discharge the debt. The action, therefore, was now
brought to recover the amount of the goods.
A shopman of the plaintiff proved the delivery of the goods
to Mrs. Flight, the application to her husband for payment,
and his immediate refusal.

Another witness was also called, who proved, that on apply..
ing to the defendant for the clothes of Ins wife, he had refused
to deliver them up, alleging as his reason, that he had met her
coming out of a house et suspicious character with another man
a short time before, and that it was on, that account he had se-
parated from her.

The eftiEr JUSTICE. told Mr. Marryatt that there were but
two cases in which the husband was obliged to pay the debti
contracted by his wife ; one, where they were living together,
and the debt had been incurred with his consent ; and the other,
where the debt was for necessaries supplied after he had turned
her out of doors without just cause. lie therefore wished to
know whether Mr. Marryatt would think it expedient to put his
case to the Jury, on the ground of want of " just cause," after
the assertion of the husband ?

Mr. 111 An RYATT said, that on considering his Lordship's
opinion, he would submit to a nonsoit.—Plaintiff nonsuited.

CAPES V. ELLIOT.

This ac!ion was brought by a bookseller in Fleet-street, to
recover the sum of 151. 17s. 6d. for books supplied to a lady,
whom, it was alleged, the defendant had recognized as his wife
in the shop of the plaintiff.
It was proved that a gentleman, called Mr. Elliot, accom-
panied a lady to the shop of the plaintiff where she agreed to
subscribe to the library, and bargained for the purchase of
some books. She asked the gentleman in what name they
should be sent ; he said " Elliot," and they were accordingly
placed to account of Mr. Elliot in the plaintiff's books. The
books were ordered to be sent to No. 156, Tottenham-court-
road, where subsequent purchases of the lady were also de-
livered. The shopmen of the plaintiff, who proved his case,
were asked by Mr. Gurney to look round them, and see if they
could point out.the Mr. Elliot who accompanied the lady, but
they were unable to do so, nor, when the defendant was shown
to them, could they tell if he were the-same person.
Mr. GURNEY said that the plaintiff's had undoubtedly mis-
taken the person.
The Lord CHIEF-JUSTICE observed, that, some reasonable
evidence of the identity ought to be given. Had it been shewn
that the defendant was lodging at the house' whither the books
were sent, that would have been some evidence for the jury to
consider; but he thought at present the case was defective.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the plaintiff, admitted that he could not
carry it farther.—The plaintiff was nonsuited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 4.
SCIPIO V. ANGUS* AND GREY.-ASSAULT AND FALSE IX-

PPY6OIEN T.

This was an action to recover damages from the defendants,
for having assaulted and falsely imprisoned the plaintiff.
The circumstances of this case, as stated by Mr. Sergeant
RULLocx in his address to the jury, were these :—The plain-
tiff is a black man, a native of South America. In March last
he was living as servant with Captain Homan, at Alpha-
Cottages, Regent's-Park. The defendant, Angus, is a green-
grocer and market-gardener, and was at the time of this trans-
action a constable.-- The other defendant, Grey, is a stable-
keeper, On the 11th of March, the two defendants went to
Capt. Homan's house, for thepurpose, as appeared, of demand-
ing a debt due from him Ao Grey,_ for - the hire of a horse and
gig.• On knocking at the door it was opened by the plaintiff;
who, in reply to the defendants' inquiries, said his master was

• This was the defendant in the cause of " Dawson v. An:
gus," noticed in our Paper of yesterday. The name was then
erroneously giver." Angers."

not at hoLne. Defendants insisted that he was, and demanded
an entrance to the house. This plaintiff refused,' and wanted
the parties to retire; they persisted in endeavouring to force
their way to the hall door (they were at this time within the
garden-gate ;) plaintiff resisted, and succeeded in shutting the
garden-gate, and putting Grey out. Angus maintained posses-
sion of his static:. inside. Angus tlgen struck the plaintiff' seve-
ral blows with a constable's staff, sthich he drew from under his
coat ; the blows were so violent as to break the staff and nearly
the p.laintiff's head at the same tithe; plaintiff bled most pro-
fusely. Grey soon after came in over the wall, and struck
plaintiffalso. At length the two succeeded in getting him on
the ground, and after severely %kiting him, Angus drew a pair
of handcuffs from his pocket, Aich after a struggle he suc-
ceeded in placing on his hands, and in that state be took him to
Marylebone police-office, from which he wassommitted to pri-
son to take his trial for an alleged assault on the constable, and
for obstructing him in the, dischaige of his duty. He was after-
wards tried and acquitted on this charge. For the assault and
illegal imprisonment he now sought compensation.
To prove this the Learned Serjcant then called
James Centel, who said, that on the day in question he was
attracted to the spot by hearing the plaintiff roaring out" mur-
der ;" he got over the wall, and saw the defendant, Angus,
and the plaintiff having hold of-each other by the collar. He then
described the severity with which Angus struck the plaintiff, and
his bleedhig very much : so much so, that witness thought he
would have died. He saw the handcuffs put on plaintiff, and.
followed him partof the way to the police-office. On his cross-
examination, witness said he could not tell which struck first.—
They appeared to have been in conflict before witness came up.
This evidence was corroborated iii the main facts by another
witness named Parker.

The defence set up by Angus was, that the plaintiff was the
first assailant, and that he , (defendant) struck in his own de-
fence, and for his personal protection.
The defence of Grey was, that the plainff was Striking and
severely beating Angus, and that he only interfered to keep the
_ _

To support this, Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN (who had addressed
the Jury for the defendants) called
John preen, who said he came up early in the transaction,
and spoke of the extremely violent conduct of the plaintiff: lie
also said he heard Cantel (the first witness, for the plaintiff)
say on the day of the transaction, that if he (Cantel) had not
gpt over the wall in time, the black would have killed Angus.
He heard the black call out for a knife in the scuffle.

Two other witnesses were called, who swore that on the day
before the trial for this transaction at Clerkenwell Sessions,
they heard theplaintiff give an account of it to a friend of his,
who sat with him in a public-house.
The account which. (according to these two witnesses) plain-
tiff gave was this—that the defendants had called to inquire
whether his master was at home' he denied him, and wanted
to put the parties outside the garden-gate, and that he began to
butt Angus with his head, saying, that's the way we do in
my country." These witnesses swore positively that the plain-
tiff himself admitted that he was the first assailant. They de-
scribed him as a very powerful man.
Mr: Sergeant II ULLOCIC addressed the Jury in reply ; after
which-

Mr. Justice Bunitouui minutely summed up the evidence,
and'the Jury, after consulting together.for about ten minutes,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, _damages 201., as against
both the defendants.

This case occupied the whole of the day.

• PREROGATIVE COURT, . Drc. 4.
This being the by-day of the term, a great many unopposed
and other causes came on for final adjudication, but nothing
occurred that appeared to possess any public interest. In the
case of Bell against Armstrong, in which the Court had, in a
former term, granted probate of the will of Mr. W. Bell, and
rejected a codicil that had been set up by the next of kin, who
now appeared, praying that the executor under the will might
be again put upon the proof- of that instrument, Sir JOHN
Nictioi. said, that though in very many cases the Court had
not allowed such a lapse- of time as that which had. intervened in
the present case, to protect an executor from beinga second time
put on proof of a will of which he hail formerly taken probate,
yet in all such instances the Court had proceeded on the facts
pleaded by such next of kin as against the validity of the will.
Now, in the present case, the party who made the application,
and was interested in the establishment of the codicil which
the Court had rejected, had never disputed' the validity of
the will, upon which, in fact, the validity of his own codi-
cil must necessarily have been founded, by his own repre-
sentations of the matter. There were circumstances, however,
in this case to induce the Court to direct this executor, who
had appeared under protest, to be a second time put on proof
of the will, which had been already. recognized and admitted
by the other party. The protest it accordingly overruled. The
Court would retain the original cause, provided the legacy
which had been received under the will by the other party (the
next of kin and a legatee) were first paid into Court. And
this was the rule laid down in " Newhall and Weeks," in
" Iloare and Spencer," in 1796, both cases happening in the
Prerogative Court ; in " Hoffinann against Norris and White,"
in Hilary T., 180.5 (Phillimore's Reports); in " Pyefield and
Palmer,' 1667 ; in " Ashdale and Ifoare," 1678 ; and in
" hangdon and Brookman," in 1777.

OLD BAILEY.
EXTENSIVE BOBBERY.-E-YeSterdak Joseph Harris, late a
private sdldier in the 2d Regiment of Foot, was indicted for
stealing in the dwelling-house of Colonel de Burgh, of that
regiment, to whom he was batnian, a diamond ring value
100/., divers Bank of England notes for the payment of 254,
anti sundry sovereigns, his property.--The prosecutor stated
the circumstances of the robbery, which have already 'been be-
fore the public.—Wm. Rich, the deputy constable of Leeds,
where the prisoner was apprehended on the 11th of November
last, proved the finding on his person of a diamond ring, a
watch, a 10/. note, a purse with 35s.'Ed. in it, and an empty
green silk purse. ,This purse, diamond ring, and note, the
Colonel identified as his owa.-111r.. Harding, a jeweller in Ox-
ford-street, proved that the watch found on the prisoner at
Leeds was bought of him in November last for N. by the pri-
soner. The prisoner paid for it with a BV. Bank of England
note. This note was also identified by the Colonel as his pro
pertv.—Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up the evidence, and
the jury gave in a verdict of Gni‘ty.