The Sun.
London, England, 1807-06-20 00:00:00

ISAACS 21. FLOWfifl.

This was an aetion brought to recover
.damages -
for a 'malicious prosecution.
The 'Plaintiff-1s a coachman, - and the driver of the
Edmonton Cdaeb, zind' the Defendant a considerable
merchant in the city. .The fortner, on his return •
borne., the habit of carrying the ,Newspapers •
'from London tO'the Angel Inn, at Ednionton ; and,
in ..consequence bf some complaints made by the
Gentlemen WhO frequented the house, respe&ing the
irregularity Of 'their Newspapers, lie was instructed •
not to deliVer them on his return from town into
any hands :.btit those of the landlord or landlady.
It -happened, in the month of January, 1806, on
his..arrival at 'the Angel, that the Defendant de-
manded the newspaper from him ; but this (ac=
cording to his orders), he refused, and imme-
diately 'carried;it:to Mrs. Imlack, the landlidy.—
The Defendant •met .him Oil his return, struck
him a violent blow in the stomach and spit in his
'face, accompanying this salutation with the' most
abusive language. The coachman, enrag-ed at such
treatment, stripped off his ,coat, and offered to fight
him fair, as a Gentleman, and in the heat of his irri-
tation, renamed •his salute with a hearty blow or.
two. Very soon after, the Defendant preferred an
indictment against
,the Plaintiff, and had him ar
rested under a Judge's (Lord. Ellenborough's) 'war-
rant fbr an assault. , The arrest took place at Ed-,
monton on.a Saturday, and the Defendant was app
plied to..bf the bailiffs
.to know' what t!ley should
.do.. flis:instindions were, that the Plaintiff should
be immediately carried to, gaol, and should not ~he
released upon any tiling less than substantial- bail.
Tli'ro friends of the. Plaintifioffered, at the A:l'le,- to
become bail for him ; tint ,tl*.r were rejezte.l, and
he was carried to the Poultry COmpter, where, he'
remained a Prisoner the following livlonday,
when he was handed over to the Marshal of the
King's Bench, who enlated.him 'upon the under-
taking. of his Attorney. lii the nrean time, and
previous to the trial of theindiament; the Plaintiff
(Issaes) brought adivil .ataion against the'Delenpant
'for an ailalt; -and recovered.-onl. &images and costs.
The indiatrientrvia's.ealled on to be.fried the follow-
ing term; ,and iiio per on pppeF:ng for tl,e prosecu-
tion; the present Plaintiff (then Defendant) wa%ac-
quitted. 'Upon that <A:caiiion Be was put to the ex-

of 511. and on titeie grounds broi.ight 'the
present

_ .
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL,' for the Defendant,
observed, that, in truth, his Client hayingTeceived
a blow tioni the lusty list of a coac'unan,
.Conceived
that be had a right to India him for an assault., In
the mean time the present Piaiptitf UoF,r roht,his , ac-
tion, and n2cover,d .501. damages, iind the Defenft. '
ant, tindiog he could not supplri his indictioehlt, did
not tiillow it up ; and this ‘‘ a, tile.vhole story of
the malicious prosecution. For his (the AT-rot:NEI--
GENERAL's) own part, they appear,d to he a coo.-
ple crt bl,ickguarrs gnarl ening together; one party,
Stripped off Ins coat, to ti4hc like a Gentleman, as.
he called it, and gave the other a blow, and an in-
ilidment followed: The question,. therefore, was,
whether the Jury could say thts.was a tnalicous pro 7
secufion ? The coschnialt had already recovered 501.
dainaes, and lie it:listed the Jury would'think he had
been fully remunerated, and that nominal damages
would satisfy the justice of this case.
- Lord EL.i.ENBOROUGH observed, that the 'evi—
dence of malice, on the part of the, Defendant,
appeared by his -procuring a Judge's Warrant for
t!r.. arrest of this man ; accompanyiu; the bai- -
litfs to 'Edmonton, and his sulyiequent•Condua. The
Jury had notling to do. wilh -the damages in the
civil aCtion-, except so far as strewed, that-Flower
had no pretence to consider- hit-melt' the injured
party; for, in fad, he was -the first aggressor. The
coichman, roused by the insult; asked him, in his 1
natural rough way, to 'fight like a man.. Human
naturq will not always brook too degrading an in-
sult, surilt as spiting in a man's face. His Lord--
thipscontinned, " you will, therefore,• Gentlemen,
take into your consideration the ,•aetual.expenee the'
plaintiff, had been put to by this prosecution; 'and
you -Will also take into your -considetation his anxiety
in being arrested and confined in themanner he has
and, the inconvenience -attending its by
the inlermption of his business." •

Verdia -for the flailtiff-•=aitnages 801.

COURT OF COMMON P.L,EAS;J.uN'E-113'.

PAYNE V. LISTON.

. .
This was an aelion brought byr,the Piaintjff, an
Attorney, to. recover the befendant, la Ge:ntie-.
man, Son ersetshite,_ iiis proportion of -die-, ex-
pence of soliciting in Padianiept a Bill to inclose-a
Cortr-non, of which he, along with others; was
pattly.proprietot, .The orig,i:nal Petition to. Parlia-
ment was ;;Agned,byall the;parties concerned, and
the Defelicilant amongst the rest,',so for. 4ackast n 0.2,
but the Bill. itself was•Mt, - The_Defent -did not
conceive that be had:render-ea himself liable. to;any
pfmonal expences by.,his sigoNture, .but: that was
to.be.detrayed by the sale of part
.t)t- the common-
ahle, lands. Another Bill was ;proirosed ,to -be .pre,
sentkliy:t),vo years afterwards,: hut.to that
.he. nrver,
ga,:e his couttnt, It appeared that there.were.in all-
thirty:rights to the cominon,:that Mr.. Payne
sea' mai possessed of fourteen of them,_ and had re-
covered the_proportion of expences.-for twelve other,
shares, at tfil.:each;;htt had never till now brought
forward_his clahn against Mr, Liston.

• Th,: LtarnedJuDGE was of opinion, that the sig-
nature: to a RAtition to,Parliaitteut rendered the
so,sning it .liable to a proportion of the ex-
peLice.—VcrdiCt for the Plaintiff, 601.