The Sun.
London, England, 1807-05-23 00:00:00

SMITH V. JAMES.

This was an abion of assault. The Plaintiff was
an Attorney, and,the Defendant a sort of Agent 'or-
Land Appraiser, arid, in consequence of some di-
lapidations ilium an estate called Copethorpe, near
Whitney, in Oxfordshire, these parties were ap-
pointed to aet as arbitrators, and to examine the
preinisea, &c. ; the Plaintiff was appointed on -be-
half of a Mrs. Shirley, and the Defendant -for Mr.
Western. They accordingly proceeded to the place,
and the Defendant was accompanied by a Mr.
Graham, a person conversant in these matters;
'Upon the latter's making some observations upon
the state of the premises, tho Defendant shoved.his
elbow, in token of silence, hinting, as. Was supposed,
that he would thereby increase the expences against
his employer, it there was any repetition. ,This( sub-
jea was,mentioned at supper, by the and
the Other denied the la6t. They all met the next
mot-6111g, and while walking in the shrubbery, the
con% ersatiOn upon the subject of the shove „was
again renewed, :and Solna altercation ensued, but it
was soon after, dropped for that time ; they met
again, however, at supper, and the subjed was again
renewed, with much altercation ; ,the Defendant
rose in a violent ,passion, kicked the Plaintiff on the
breech, and put him out of the room ; fur which
assault the aulion was brought.
' Mr. PARKE, fur the Defendant, called no evi-
dence; • but observed, that this was a very trifling
case, with which there was no necessity to trouble
a Special Jury, only that it put his Client to an en-
ormous expence. He would not either deny or jus-
tify the assault,, but the, nature ,of it was such, he
was satisfied the Jury would think the smallest da-
mages- they could give would be quite sufficient.
ELLENBOROUGII, in skimming up the evi-
dence, reprobated the idea of bringing such actions as
these out of their local jurisdictions, and the Jury
found a verdi& for the i!laintiti.---ts. Damages.

BOUGHTON V. BOUGHTON.
This was an issue. direEted from the Court of
Cbancxry, to try whether Eliza, the natural daugh-
ter of Sir Edward Boughton, Bart. deceased, was
legally married, on the 10th 4ugust, 1798, to her
present husband, Sir Charles George Braithwaite
Boughton. 'The deceased, , Sir E. Boughton,.. was
the father of Lady Boughton, by a person-who co-
habited with hum as his wife for many years, and by
his last will he bequeathed the great bulk of his
property to Eliza Lady Boughton, with restriaions
upon the person whb , should become her husband,
that he should ,take the name of Boughton.
now Lady Boughton, being about to be married,to
her present husband, Sir George Charles Braith-
waite Boughton,' then Mr. George Charles Braith-
waite, not being more than twenty years of age; and
having ncrifiatnral parents or testamentary guardians,
the-law required that she should have the consent of
guardians appointed by the Court; Mrs. Ann Ruther-
ford and Mr. Richard Sandinams were accordingly
appointed guardians by the Court for that purpose ;
they gave their full approbation,. and tI4 parties were
married by special licence, at St. George's, Hanover-
square, on the 10th August, 1798.
/These teas were admitted by the ATTORNEY-
GKNRAL, as Counsel for the -Defendants, who, in
his defence observed, that by the Statute of the 26th
of George 11. it was enadled; that a minor, under
the age of 21 years, should have the consent of his
or her father, if living ; if otherwise, of his or her
guardian_or guardians; or, in want of these, of his
or her motile,. or of. guardians appointed by the
CUurt. In this case he should prove, that Lady
Boughton was born in wedlock, and that her legal
fattier was alive at the time she was married.
Mr. James King was then called; and deposed,
that ht.-. was present at the marriage of Mr. John
Kay, with the mother of Lady Boughton, Satanic
Davis,. on the 18th of January, 1774. He never
knew they had any family ; and some time after ,he
understood 'Salonie Davis, then Kay? lett her hus-
band, and went to live with Sir Edward Boughton
until Slit! died. Mr. John Kay was alive within
Liese three years.
Mr. Gamtow, for the Plaintiff, said lie could not
gi‘'e auy answer to this ; and the- Jury accordingly
iutind a ierdi& fur thenaintitr: that—" Lady Eliza
Th.eghton vas not legally. married on the loth of
August, 1798."
By this verdia, all the marriage- settlements pre-
vieu t() the marriage, are. made void.

HOUtt4AKT V. Ce,IDPER.