The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-04 00:00:00

VIVIAN V. HUMPHRIES.

In this case, which our readers will recollect related to cer-
t-.in mines in Cornwall, his Lordship said be had read the
answer, and he saw nothing in it to alter the view he had
originally formed. The party was not entitled, to the costs of
the issue on which he had failed, but was entitled to the costs
of the issue on which be had succeeded.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord DENMAN and a
Common Jury.)
BRIGGS V. ATNEWORTII.

This was an action to recover a sum of 311. 10s., the value
of a horse alleged to have been killed by the negligent
and furious driving► of the defendant. It appeared from
the statement of the plaintiff's Counsel, that the defendant
was a clog manufacturer, carrying on business in Tho-
mas-street, Borou4h, and that he was in the habit of
driving about the country in the vicinity of London, for
the purpose of callecting orders. The plaintiff resides
at Layton, in Essex, and was in the habit of letting
out horses and gigs for hire, and on the 2d of July
last a person named Bird hired a horse and chaise
from him, and proceeded from Lay ton to High Beach. On
his return, about 10 o'clock at night, and when near Layton.
he was met by two persons in a chaise, driving at the rate of
about fourteen or fifteen miles an hour, at Barrett's Corner ;
they were on the wrong side of the road, and the shaft of their
chaise entered the horse's chest to a considerable depth, and
killed him on the spot. Bird alleged that he knew the de-
fendant very well, and that he was the person who was driving.
He did not know his name or address, and requested the defend-
ant to give them, but he refused, and drove off. Bird followed,
keeping hold of the chaise, but was at length compelled to let
go his hold, and the defendant drove off. A week afterwards
Bird and the plaintiff went to the defendants house, in the
Borough, when he in the first instance admitted that he was
at Layton on the 2d instant, but afterwards said he had beet:
at Kingston.

Mr. PLATT and Mr. JAMES appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. KELLY and Mr. BUTT for the defendant.
A great number of witnesses were examined on both sides
and the evidence was of an extremely conflicting nature ; one
party swearing positively that the plaintiff was at Wandsworth,
Brixton, and Kingston, doing business on the day in question,
and the other, that be was seen in the neighbourhood of
Layton.

Lord DENMAN summed up the evidence at great length, and
the Jury asked leave to retire, and had not returned int(
Court when we went to press.

EXCHEQUER COURT-(THIS DAY.

STEVENS V. SHIELD.

Mr. MILLER having opened the pleading,
Mr. ERLE said it was an action to recover compensation for
an assault which was more in the nature of an insult. The
plaintiff, was employed by Mr.7Cleghorn, for the sale of
some patent article, and on the 25th April last he was at that
gentleman's house. His daughter had shortly before received
very improper letter, which he suspected had been sent by
the defendant, who happened to be dining with Mr. Cleghorr,
on the day in question. On the same day plaintiff's wife and
daughter called; at Mr. Cleghorn's, which the plaintiff did
not like. He challenged the defendant with writing the offer,.
sive h tier, and immediately, in place of making any apology,
he " d—d .he letter and the plaintiff into the bargain." Plain•
tiff went into the warehouse upon some business, and on his
return he found his wife in conversation with the defendant.
He was annoyed, as he conceived it improper without some
explanation. After some further conversation, plaintiff said to
defendant, could he as a man of honour, deny that he had written
the letter, when he lifted up a glass of beer, which he threw
in plaintiff's face. This was the assault complained of, and
though there was not much personal suffering, he would put it
to them whether there was not much suffering in the feelings
in being so insulted before, not strangers only, but one's wife
and daughter. He tribted the Jury would give such damages
as would teach the defendant to behave better, and make some
compensation to the wounded feelings of the plaintiff. He
then called

Alexander Archer—Was at the house of Mr. Cleghorn on
the 25th April last, when the plaintiff was there. The defen-
dant was dining with Mr. Cleghorn. The plaintiff's wife and
daughter were present. Mr. Stevens complained very much
of a valentine which he said the defendant had sent to his
daughter. A good deal of recriminatory conversation
took place, and it ended in Mr. Stevens' challenging
the defendant to fight him with pistols next morning.
This was before Mr. Cleghorn and Mrs. Stevens. Plain-
tiff was very violent, and called defendant "scoundrel,"
" blackguard," and a great many other expletives. When
defendant received the challenge, he said, " If that is your
game, let us have it now," and was about to take off his coat,
when witness interfered, and said they should not fight in the
presence of the ladies. Stevens began again with his abuse,
and defendant chucked half a glass of beer in his face. Wit-
ness then took Mrs. and Miss Stevens home, and knew nothing
more of the matter.

Cross-examined.—The first par* of the affair was Stevens
murmuring at his wife's conduct in bad terms, and defendant
said to him, " For God's sake, don't say such things of your
wife before strangers I"
Miss Helen Stevens said she and her mother called, on the
day in question, at the house of Mr. Cleghorn, where her
father was. He was in the habit of speaking very impro-
perly to her mother, and did so upon that occasion. Mr.
Shield was present, and found fault with her father for so
doing. There was afterwards a quarrel about a letter, and
her father hart his fist in defendant's face when he threw the
beer in his face.

The Jury stopped the case, and found a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages, one farthing.
Mr. HOMFRET hoped his Lordship would certify in such
a case.
Lord ABlNGER—Certainly. So tLe plaintiff must pay his
own costs.

SECONDARiES' COURT.

(THIS DAY.)

RICK ARDSON V. REYNELL.
This was an action brought by Major Richardson, against
the defendant, who is the printer of a publication called the
Paul Pry, for a libel on his character.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS appeared as Counsel for the plaintiff;
and Mr. HUMPHREY for the defendant.
The Counsel for the defendant made a long, and, as Mr.
Phillips deemed, an ample apology, acknowledging the false-
hood of the charge made against the plaintiff, and by consent
the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with nominal
damages.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS I)AY.)

OLD COURT.

Edward Button, 23, was charged with having, on the 16th
of November, unlawfully administered to Mary Ann Wells
and Mary Campbell, a quantity of cantharides, with intent to
injure their health. He was also charged with a common assault.
Mr. DuANE conducted the prosecution, but it is unnecessary
to repeat the evidence,it having been so recently before the public.
Mr. PAYNE having addressed the jury on behalf of the pri-
soner, they consulted a few minutes, and then returned a ver-

diet of guilty, but recommended the prisoner to mercy, on th
ground of his previous good character, in which recommenda-
tion the prosecutor also joined.
The COURT, in passing sentence, said that however excel-
lent the previous character of the prisoner might. have been,
this was a most serious offence, and one which could not be
overlooked or visited with a light punishment. The sentence
therefore was, that he be imprisoned for twelve calendar
months in Giltspur-street.
Thomas Theophilus Biggs, who has been already tried and
acqnitted on two indictments, was again placed at the bar,
charged with having, on the 3d of October, stolen a silver
syringe, the property of Charles Louis Stanislaus Baron Heur-
teloup, his master.
Mr. A DoLptins slid in this case he should offer no evidence
and a verdict of acquittal was therefore taken. Similar ver-
dicts were recorded in three other cases against the prisoner•