The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 3.
SCOTT V. WAITIIMAN AND WILLIAMS,
This action was brought against the defendants, who served
he Office of Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, to recover a
Loss which the Plaintiff sustained by the neglect of the defend-
ants to take proper securities in a replevin bond.
The plaintiff, a broker, was employed to distrain on behalf
of a Mrs. Woolfe, the goods of a Mr. Magrath, residing in
Welbeck-street. The sum of 221. 7s. was due for rent, and the
plaintiff distrained the goods to the value of 70/. Magrath
sued out a replevin, and the plaintiff having traversed obtained
judgment for Mrs. Woolfe. The plaintiff then applied at the
Sheriff's Office for delivery of the goods or the bond which the
defendants had taken. The defendants handed over the bond,
having Mr. Hynes, a tide waiter, at the wages of four shillings
per day, and Mr. Mabberlcy, a coachmaker, sureties in the
amount of 1001. The plaintiff refused to take the bond, con-
sidering the sureties not in a state of solvency, and brought
this action. The question was, whether they were good
bondSmen.
Several witnesses proved that Mabberley's credit was not
good after he became security.
Mr. AIARRYATT, for the defendant, contended, that the
Sheriff's Officer, Gill, who took the bond, had no reason to
suppose in 1819, when it was executed, that Mr. Mabberley's
credit was had, and therefore he was justified in taking the
bond, however the parties might turn out.
The LORDCHIEF Jus•rrcC in his charge to the Jury said, if
a Sheriff's officer does not use due dilligence in taking proper
sureties to_ a bond, the Sheriffs are liable. The Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages 70/.
THE KING V. BURT.
This was an indictment against the defendant for assaulting
henry Ortey on the 11th of April last. According to the evi-
dence, the prosecutor, who had some dealing with the defend-
ant in the hay and corn line, went to the shop of Burt, in Hol-
born, where the latter carries on the business of a maker of straw
bonnets. He saw him in the back parlour, and said he came
to speak to him about his bill, which was not right. The de-
fendant said, why don't you go to my office and have it set
right. The prosecutor said he wanted a proper bill to satisfy
his partner that lie had not had bonnets for his children. There
was something wrong upon the face of the bill he had received.
The defendant, according to the evidence of the prosecution,
then took him by the collar and drove him violently into the
street under the hackney coaches. The prosecutor then got
up, went to the door, and said, is .this all I get when I apply 1
for my right ? Upon making that observation the defendant
seized him again and struck him repeated blows in various
parts of his body. His mouth bled, and he was so much in-
jured as to be unable to follow his business for seven weeks.—
The defendant was described to be as big as Gregson the boxer.
The circumstance of the assault were repeated by Jones, a
porter at the George and Blue Boar, who saw the transaction.
Mr. ANDREWS, for the defendant, addressed the Jury, and
contended that his client was justified in what he had done.
Elizabeth York, the defendant's servant, proved that Ortey
came into the house, in a state of drunkenness, and called Burt
a swindler, on which her master turned him out.
Garlic, the defendant's shopman, endeavoured to prove that
Ortey had made him promise to give a full account of the trans-
action, saying he would make him a present for so doing. The
witness added, that he signed a paper, the contents of which
was dictated by Ortey. Ile, however, delared the whole to be
false. -The account he called a true account was in justification
of the defendant.
Ortey being called, deposed that he had never dictated the
writing to which the last witness had spoken.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE censured in severe terms the
conduct of Garlie, for having put his name to a statement he
knew to be false.
The Jury found the defendant Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 3.'
ELLIOTT V. BROWN.
This was an action to recover damages for injury done to the
plaintiff's horse, by the negligence of the defendant's servant.
The plaintiff's are brewers residing in Pimlico ; the defendant
is a cheesemonger living in the neighbourhood of Long-acre.
It appeared from the evidence of several witnesses, that the
plaintiff's horse and cart were standing opposite a public-house
in Long-acre, on the 26th of June last. The defendant's ser-
vant, with a horse and cart, were passing, and, as was alleged,
by the servant's negligence, struck against the plaintiff's horse,
knocked him down, and drove the shaft of the cart into his
side, by which he was seriously injured, and under the care
of a veterinary surgeon for a considerable time. The loss oc-
casioned by this alone was estimated at sixteen guineas. An
offer was made by the plaintiff to settle the matter privately,
but the offer was refused by the defendant. The present action
was therefore instituted.

Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN addressed the jury for Cie de•
fendant, and called some witnesses to prove that no blame was
to be imputed to the servant, but that the circumstance of the
injury was purely accidental.
Mr. Sergeant PELL replied, and the jury, after hearing the
Learned Judge's summing up, found a verdict for the plaintiff'
—Damages IGI. 16s.
DAWSON V. ANGERS.—ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISON-

MEN T.
The plaintiff in this case is a journeman carpenter resident
in the neighbourhood of Lisson-grove ; the defendant is a green
grocer and market gardener, in good business in the same neigh-
bourhood. According to the statement of Mr. Sergeant Hui--
Lock to the jury, it appeared that on the 19th of March last,
as•the plaintiff was quietly walking along near the Rock Ta-
vern, he was met by Angers, the defendant, who without pro-
vocation seized him by the collar, and took him prisoner in that
manner until he. Came to the police-office, Marylebone. He
there gave him in charge to the officer of the day, to be kept

until he (defendant) went for the,prOsecutor. Plaintiff was de-
tained above two hours, and was at length discharged on giving
his word for his re-appearance. The only alleged ground for
this gross ill treatment was, that the defendant, who is a con-
stable, had, on a former occasion, called on the plaintiff, in'the
King's name, to assist him in keeping the peace, when he was
struggling to take a black man, named Scipio. Such conduct,
the Learned Sergeant said, was grossly illegal, and he trusted
the Jury would shew,by their verdict, that it was not to escape
with impunity.
Hill proved, that on the day in question, he met the de-
fendant holding the plaintiff by the collar, and taking him along
in a very rough manner, towards the police-office. Witness
remonstrated at this treatment, but defendant threatened to
take him into custody also.
On his cross-examination, this witness admitted that plain-
tiff had told him that the defendant had arrested him, because
he (plaintiff) had refused, when called upon in the King's
name, to assist him in keeping the peace.
Another witness who saw the transaction corroborated this
evidence, and added, that when the defendant arrived at the
police-office with the plaintiff in custody, he was asked for the
warrant by which he had arrested him, but he said he had not
got a warrant.

The officer who was in the office at the time, corroborated
the evidence as to the non-production of a warrant. The plain-
tiff was in custody about two hours.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, for the defendant admitted that as
his client had not had the precaution to prOcure a warrant for
the arrest of the plaintiff, a verdict must pass against him. But
he submitted that this was not a case where they were called
upon to give more than nominal damages. Here was the case
' of a constable acting in the discharge of his duty and in danger
of great personal violence ; he called on the plaintiff in the
King's name, to assist him in keeping the peace, which he re-
fused. Now his Lordship would tell them, that a man refus-
ing to assist when so called upon by a constable, was guilty of
a misdemeanour, and might be indicted for it ; and the only
error the constable committed was not having procured a war-
rant for his'arrest. Under the circumstances, he trusted the mis-
take of this man would not be visited with heavy damageg.
Mr. Justice PARK summed up, and the Jury gave a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 408. and costs.
It appeared from a question put to one of the witnesses, that
the plaintiff had been, since the transaction, tried for having
refused to assist constable, and acquitted.