The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-02 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before the Loan Curm, JUSTICE and a Common Jury.)
DAVIS V. COMPTONS.
This was an action for assault brought against the defendants, a
publican and his two sons, living in Old street, at the corner of York-
street, for violently and without provocation, beating the plaintiff' and
expelling him from their house.

For the plaintiffit was stated by several witnesses, that Davis and
two friends went into Compton's house, after twelve o'clock, on the 28th
October last, and asked for drink, when the plaintiff was abused by the
defendants, refused drink, beaten and expelled.
On the other side, the defendant's witnesses directly contradicted the
opposite evidence, and stated that Davis and his friends went to Comp.
ton's for the avowed purpose of kicking up a row.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in the course of the defence, suggested that
each party should withdraw a juror; but the advice of the Court was
not acted upon.

The cause having occupied the Court nearly five hours, the Jury,
after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 40s.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. KIRK ♦ND ANOTHER.
This was an information laid by her Majesty's Attorney-General
against Messrs. Kirk and White, the eminent colour-makers, for penal.
ties which it was alleged they had made themselves liable to by the frau.
dulent removal of a quantity of cochineal.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (With whom was Mr. TANCRED and Mr.
KAve) stated the case to the Jury. A quantity of cochineal in ten bags,
each containing 201b5., was laying in bond in the London Docks. The
defendants applied for leave to take it for the purpose of preparing it for
a foreign market, by making it undergo some peculiar process known to
them, whereby its value was much-enhanced. Leave was so given,
and they took the valuable insects to their own premises. Some time
after the officers of the Customs, on visiting the premises, found that
the cochineal was indeed undergoing a process whereby its value would
be enhanced—at all events one by which the defendants were likely to
profit considerably—they found that nine of the bags were con-
tained in boxes mixed with some heavy white powder, which
made the nine weigh as heavy as the whole ten, thereby evading
the payment of the heavy duty upon one-tenth of the whole lot. He
would prove these circumstances, and then he would fally rely upon the
verdict of the Jury in favour of the Crown, in order that the fair trader
might receive that protection from the law to which he was entitled.
Sir W. FoLLErr, who, with Mr. JARVIS, was for the defendant, sub.
mitted that upon the opening of the Solicitor-General, even if proved,
there could be no case for the Jury. The defcndar.ts took out, upon
leave from the Lords of the Treasury, their own goods for the purpose
as stated by his Learned Friend. They were allowed a certain time for
either the return of the article, or payment of the duty upon it. That
time had not expired when the seizure took pEce. How, then, could
the Jury infer any fraudulent intention upon such a state of facts.
The LORD CIIIEF-BARON could not see how the information would be
supported. He would, however allow the case to go on, as the facts
might be strongly made out.

Evidence was then led as to the fact of the removal of the goods and
their seizure. 'When the officer came to state the nature ofthemixture,
Sir W. FOLLETT again interrupted, and said he must beg to have his
Lordship's opinion as to whether the evidence which was being given
had any reference to the charge in the information, which was laid for
a fraudulent removal of the goods.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL contended that it had, inasmuch as he would
by it show, that one-tenth of the cochineal would not pay duty, nor
was it the intention of the parties to return it.
Sir W. FoLtErr.—Our time had not expired.
Lord ABINGER.—I confess my opinion is strong upon the point. How
are we to infer, in the first place, that the defendants did not intend to
return the goods? Again, why are we called upoa to infer that, sup.
posing there was one-tenth of the cochineal left over after the process,
the parties were going to use it for home consumption without payment
of the duty. I will think it my duty to tell the Jury that ; for the safety
of trade generally, they cannot draw so many and such remote in-
ferences.

The Sou3rron-GENERAL, upon such a strong intimation of the
opinion of the Court, would not press the matter any further.
A verdict was accordingly taken for the defendants.
Sir W. FoLLErr then said the defendants had not instructed him to
make the objection, and he would not have done so, only that the evi-
dence would have exposed the mode ofpreparation pursued by his clients
through which their cochineal had obtained great celebrity. He was
quite prepared to have shewn that the charge was wholly unfounded, by
former transactions and the mode of manufacture.
Those were two other informations against the same defendants upon
similar grounds, which were settled by the result of this one.