The Sun.
London, England, 1825-06-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH; JUNE 1.
MILLER AND, OTHERS V. DOUGLASS AND OTHERS.
This was an action against three officers of the Portable Gas
Company for a forcible entry,' With counts in trespass at corn-
law. The Company had been in.treaty with the plaintiffs for
a lease of an acre and a half of land near Battle-bridge ; but
plaintiffs refused to carry it into execution ; and the Company
filed a bill in Chancery for a specific performance of the alleged
contract. While this measure was pending, on Dec. 13 last,
10 or 12 men, under their authority, took possession of the land
with a constable's staff and a cutlass, and held it till the action
was brought.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for the defendants, admitted
that they were guilty of a trespass, but denied that they ever
intended to , authorize, or ever id authorize, any of those
acts of violence or force which amounted to a' forcible entry or
detainer.
Mr. 'CAMPBELL having called Mr. Yellowly, the surveyor
of the Company, was beginning to examine him as to the treaty
for the lease, when
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, with some warmth, observ-
ed, that these circumstances were entirely irrelevant to the
view of the case presented by the Attorney-General. It was
most important that the time of the public, precious as it was,
should not be wasted, and that gentlemen of the bar should
confine theniselves to the real question in dispute, and separate
them from all irrelevant matter, as had been done in former
times. It was distressing to see a contrary course taken by
Counsel. of the very highest rank in their profession.
Mr. CAMPBELL, after speaking to the -Attorney-General,
said.that he was not conducting the case, he was only acting
under, the directions of his leader.
Several witnesses were examined to prove that the Company
intended'no forciblecntry ; but they proved little, except that
• the men were instructed not to resist a peace-Officer.
The Jury, under the direction ofthe LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 1001. a expressing
an opinion that there was a forcible entry, which entitles the
plaintiff to treble damages under the statute.
ASSAULT.—POOLE V. ELLISTON.
In this cause four special jurors and eight talesmen were
sworn.
Mr. ALDERSON stated that this was an action against Robert
Wm. Elliston for an assault, to which he had pleaded " Not
Guilty."
Mr. BROUGHAM opened the case on behalf of the plaintiff.
The Jury had heard from his Learned Friend, that this was an
action for assault, and it was his duty to state the circumstances
Under which it arose.- There was no class of cases-brought into
Courts of Justice which exhibited such remarkable varieties of
complexion and character as that to which this cause belonged.
Many of theni, no doubt, were of a very light and trivial nature,
arising between persons of low station, or originating in quarrels
on a race-course or at an ale-house, which deserved.but little at-
tention from the Court, and were sufficiently compensated by
trivial damages. But there were other cases also ranging them-
selves nominally under the description of assaults, in which the
injury complained of was serious, and which merited the anxious
and attentive consideration of Juries. Of this latter kind was
the case which -he should proceed to state and to piove. Mr.
Poole, the plaintiff, was a person moving in the rank and
entitled to. the character of a gentleman, who, following
the example of some of the most distinguished orna-
ments of English' Literature, had written pieces for the
stage, -which had received no inconsiderable portion of
public .favour and applause. In consequence of these successes,
he became entitled to a privilege which, was always expected
'-by authors of successful pieces, and uniformly bestowed upon
them, of free admission to the theatre which they assisted by
their talents, and which, in pursuance of that custom, was con-
ferred on Mr. Poole by Mr. Elliston. In consequence, how-
ever, of some other Piece, or something which Mr. Poole had
written or said, which was dispjeasing to the great manager, he
thought fit to withdraw the privilege to which he was entitled as
an author, and refused him entrance. Mr. Poole wrote to re-
monstrate; but no notice was taken of his letters. This cir-
, eumstance did not surprise him, for he knew that the manager
was a very stately person, and that those who occupied his si-
tuation-thought themselves occasionally entitled to assume airs
of superiority which would not befit gentlemen in other profes-
sions of less dignity. Mr. Poole, being unable to obtain an an-
swer, determined to call on Mr. Elliston, and went for that
purpose to the theatre, accompanied by a friend. He called in
the morning, for it would have been unpardonable to obtrude
on the manager in the hours, of relaxation from his cares ; • but
he went at a time when he would be prepared to attend to the
business of thetheatre. Mr. Poole and his friend sent up their
cards, and after waiting a suitable time, received a message
desiring them to walk into the manager's room; and thither
they repaired. After -a little time, Mr. Elliston entered in a
•violent rage, stormed -high with passion, and aildressed Mr.
Poole in language tog coarse to, be repeated by him, though it
must be stated by the witnesses. This language belonged only
to the lowest class of people, and was followed up by a kick of
the.most humiliating kind. Mr. Elliston then endeavoured to
collar Mr. Poole and on his friend interposing to separate
them, called him a liar, and threatened to serve him in the same
way. Could any excuse be offered for such en outrage ? Surely
the plea-of intoxication could not be set up, for this was. in the.
morning, at a time when-none above the station of ticket por-
ters, and hardly any of that laborious and respectable class, were
to be affixted with liquor. Jilin in the evening it could
hardly- be insinuated that such -a thing -ever happened to Mr.
Elliston—a man who was then '• to hold the mirror up to Na-
ture"—(a laugh)—and who never would, instead of that n
hold a Bacchanalian glass op to Nature with unsteady hand.
If the plaintiff had been a porter or a waggoner, he might speak
of the bodily pain he had suffered; but when a gentleman.com-
plained of the 'worst of human indignities—a blow, publicly and
deliberately inflicted.in open day,—it would lie a mockery to
speak ofi eny corporal feeling in comparison With .the mortifica-
tion which .made such a blow worse to him than a fractured
limb. Surely the Jury, as: just and sensible men, would feel
for the bitter outrage inflicted on the plaintiff, for which hardly
any compensation could be excessive; and would by their ver-
dict encourage men, when personally attacked, to appeal for
redress to-the laws, which it was their office to administer, and
to that public justice which it was their ditty to execute.`
Mr. St. Aubin was examined by Mr. A t:iaxßsoN—He said,
I have the honour to be a Barrister. lam a friend of Mr.
Poole; anti on the 4th December last, about one o'clock et Aeon,
accompanied - him to Drury-lane Theatre. We . sect in our.
cards, with a message, requesting to see Mr. Elliston. After
waiting for some time, we were asked to walk in, and. were
shown to Mr.'Elliston's room. When we were: there-,- Mr.
Elliston came. in, apparently in a violent • passion, and address-
ing himself to Mr. Poole,:eaid, ". Get out of this house, et, 1
will kick you," using a very coarse exPreSsion.
Mr. ALDERSON—What did he do then ?
The witness—Why then, Sir, he," suited-tile, faction to the
Word," and did it. (Great laughter.) A scuffle ensued,-and
Mr. Poole attempted to remonstrate with Mr. Ellistorr but he
would noteheir him. I then offei ed to speak, but-he would not
hear ene, and I advised Mr. Poole immediately .to leave the
theatre. We did so ;' Mr. Elliston followed us across the staeee,
and said to Mr. Poole, " I don't strike you ;- for if I did,-
should kill you." I said, " Sir, you have struck him;" he
turned short round and said " You lie." I said "we had
better get `away-as soon as ix-issible,". and went on with Mr.
Poole, Mr. Elliston following us into the street, and continuing
to abuse us, and giving orders to the door-keepers in our hear-
ing to take notice of Mr. Poole, and not toadmit him.
=Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLET T—flow. lonlehave you
been at the bar ?.

The witness—Thirteen or fourteen years.
Mr. SCAR LETT—Oh, that's a trifle.
The witness, in answer to other qtiestions, said Mr. Poole
went directly by my advice to-a Magistrate. 'I Sent up my
card by .Mr. Poole 7s desire. I was not acquainted with Mr.
Elliston.

Mr. ScARLETT--,llid Mr. Poole take you with him as his
counsel ?

•
..The•witn CSS— No ; very few people do that.—(A
The counsel I gave to 'Mr. Poole was, to get away a's soon as
possible.
Mr. kicAnr.ETT—Did you make an oration?
The witness.--LO no ! there was no time ; Mr. Elliston
fol
lowed up this threat by immediate execution. I know of no.
libel but the pamphlet you hold in your hand (pointing to a
pamphlet which Jr.A Scarlett held).. I have heard -Mr.• Poole
say that he had held up Mr. Elliston to public riclici,43. knew that Mr. Elliston had refused his admission to the theatre,
and that he had received no answer to his letters. Mr. Poole
never told me he would go to the-theatre and insult Mr. Ellis-
tun—upon my oath he did not. I was not examined before the
Magistrate ; but when Mr. Poole had ,teld his story, I was.
asked if I had witnessed the transaction, -and I said I had. I
never advised Mr. Poole to change the form of proceeding from
an indictment id an action ; 'I advised him, on the contrary, .to
make an example. of Mr. rhever heard Mr. Poole
say he would call on Mr: Elliston and provoke him. Idid not
think that Mr. Elliston would be irritated, because tl!e
prtrra-
phlet had escaped my memory. Mr. 'Poole did net tell Me,
that he.had caused the effensive matter of his pamphlet to be
inserted in the newspapers. Mr. Elliston appeared in a violent
passion„.

Air. Hopwood, clerk to the attorney for the plaintiff. proved,
that he gave notice tb Air. Elliston of the intention of the prose-
cutor to proceed:by action instead of by jrulictrnent, and that
the recognizances were discharged at the plaintiff's expellee.
~_•in.tt said, his learned friend seemed to think that
the shortest case was hest.;: and he would follow his example.
lie - was ready to adopt the words 0. his friend' to the. very.
letter, " that there were no cases which exhibited such Varieties
of complexion. and character as cases bf assault ;" and he

could certainly fancy a case of aggravation and entire absence
of cause which might be worthy of the serious consideration
even of a special jury. But he, like Mr. Brougham, was at
liberty to fancy a case—where the party complaining had been
the party insulting—where he had goaded on the defbndant by
insult after insult--where he had calculated on the infirmity of
his temper when he determined to provoke him, and had also
produced that which he might have expected to receive. Surely
such a case was hardly deserving of the dignity of a special
jury ; nor did the only point which could be raised, whether
they should give a shilling or a farthing, require any serious
consideration at their hands. Mr. Poole, who now came to
ask for damages against Mr. Elliston, confessed that he had
held him up to ridicule; that, taking for a right what was only
a favour, he had added insult to insult because it was with-
drawn ; and that, after his letters. remained unanswered, he
went to the man whom lie had libelled, taking a friend as a
witness to the proceedings. Surely, if a man thus goaded ano-
ther to attack him—if he solicited what he obtained—he had no
right afterwards to claim serious damages. It was impossible
to conceive any thing more insolent than the course adopted by
the plaintiff towards the man whom he had injured, or' more
calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. It had been in-
sinuatechliat Mr. Elliston was a man of irritable temper,—it
might be-so :we did not make ourselves, but were as Nature
had formed us; and if Mr. Elliston was quick to apprehend in-
sult, Mr. Poole was the less excusable in offering it. At.first-
he intended to prosecute; he hoped thus to wreak his vengeance
on the defendant; but then came the prudent attorney, Most
prudently, perhaps consulting Mr. Brougham,' who suggested
that in this mode of proceeding he would himself be examined
as a witness, and that he would be fbrced *to confess all the
insults, all the provocation, all the injuries, by which he had
irritated and stung his opponent; and that then Mr. Elliston
would be convicted, and fined sixpence. He then thought it
better to bring his action, where he could produce' some filend who knew Hale of the previous matter, and try to set up the
right of free admission, which he claimed by virtue of some-
prescription from the time of Thespis.• The Jury, however,.
would defeat his object—they would see that Mr. Elliston,..
though not justified, was greatly excused. They would recol-
lect that the Being who made us reasonable, made us also ie-
sentful ; and would think the man who had libelled. another..
and goaded him on to assault him, amply compensated by.-
nominal damages.
The Loan Cams. JUSTICE shortly stated the effect of the
evidence. The assault was not denied, and therefore the plain-
tiff,was by law entitled to a verdict ; and the only question for
the consideration of the Jury was the amount of damages.
Now It certainly did appear, that Mr. Elliston having taken
away the privilege of fee admission to the theatre as by law be
had a right to do, the plaintiff held him up to public ridicule, •
and wrote to him letters to which he received no answer. If,
after this, he chose to go to the theatre and call on the defend-
ant, hiving reason to expect he would be irritated at his pre-
sence, and thus brought on himself the assault of which lie
complained, the damages ought to be very moderate indeed.
The Jury consulted for about ten minutes, and then returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 80/.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE laughed and shook his head, expressive of disapprobation of the verdict, which excited some
surprise in Court.
TILE KING V. ROBERT BLIGH, ESQ. '
This was a seirc facias on the recognizance, whereby the de-
fendant was hound on the sth of August, 1820, in the penal
sum of 6,0001., to keep the peace towards his Majesty's sub-
jects,
and especially towards the Earl of Darnley. - -
The breach of this recognizance took place on the Ist of
May, . 1823. On that day, Lord Clifton, the son of the Earl
of Darnley, was riding on horseback, in company with his
sister, Lally Elizabeth Bligh, his brother, and a clergyman,
named Martin, from Vauxhall-bridge, along' Pimlico, when
Mr. Bligh passed them in his gig. When he had proceeded
about 50 yards, he checked his horse, and the party passed
him. He crossed over to the other side of the road, and drove
by them, giving, as he went, to Lord Clifton two strokes of his
horsewhip, one on,his back arid the other on his chest.
Mr. GURNEY, in stating. the case for the Crown, observed
that the defendant • had conceived. - a most unibrtunate and
groundless resentment against Lord Darnley and his family, '
who had acted towards him. with exemplary forbearance ; and
who, thOugh they had instituted this proceeding, had delayed
bringing it to trial till the defendant himself forced them to
submit the case to the Jury. The Learned Counsel called'
Lord Clifton and 11r. Martin, who proved the assault as lie
stated it.
Mr. MEREWETIIER addressed the Jury for the defendant, and contended that the blows might have been accidentall:!4-
given in the act of passing ; and urged that, if there was any
gl
ehfttot hperiesaosne forto tliiifee:Tu Jury on the
doubt, the Jury. would refrain from giving a verdict whtcli
woTulhdepir,oot)bliv4icioliansiigyullir.lCßEli
only question—whether the blows were intentionally or acci_
dentaily inflicted.
- ,
The Jury found that the assault was committed, and that the
dam dent's recegnizances were broken. ;

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 1.
'(21(7/0//riled Sittings cater Term, here Lord Chief Jag--
lice BEsT, and a Special Jury.),
STRONG V. RULE.
This was an action on a policy of insurance on the ship Wa.;
terloo, value 1,5001. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit.
The plaintifFwas owner of the shiP, and had brought the ac-
tion against the defendant, . who was a partner of the Pacific
Mutual Association Assurance Company, the members of which
agreed mutually to insure each other's ships.. The plaintiff was
a member of the Association. The Waterloo sailed from this
country in July,
to Jamaica. Shortly after her departure from Jamaica, on bet
return to this country, she struck on a rock in the Gulf OrMex-
ico, and was • preserved from destruction by the assistance of
the wreckers and the crew of a Colombian privateer called the-
Sentella. The Waterloo was afterwards enabled to proeeed`to
Savannah; where her • cargo was sold to pay for the repair
he ,plaintiff was on ,hoard all the time, and purchased a great
portion of the cargo. He now brought the action against the
Mutual Association Company to recover the.amount of the re-
pairs. The defendant said, that because the plaintiff had mo-
ney to purchase the. cargo, he ought to have employed that rric-
bey, and saved the insurers the loss arising on the sale of the
goods which had been sold for paying, the repairs.
,The evidence for the plaintiff occupied the Court all day.
In the --course of the proceedings several objections were
taken; and
Mr. Sergeant VA u.ollari.submitted that the plaintiff must
be nonsuited on two or three grounds ; that the consideration,
as proved, was not properly stated in the declaration; and that
the contract was in its nature -an' illegal one, because the asio-
ciaticm was illegal.
The LORD Currx JosTicu having over-ruled the first
.
point, and reserved the other;
• Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN, seeing that it was so late, and that
there was a probability of-the cause not being concluded before-
midnight, strbrnitted to a verdict for the plaintiff' on a particu-
lar count of the declaration, and said he would move the Court,.
above.

COTiciTillAitKP.T., JUNE
Ships at Market, . - . Ships sold
22, Newcastle 2l
8 Simtleffand - . 7

• Price.
28 6(1 to 37s 6d
34s 3d to 33s (ki

•
BIRTHS.
On the 2t4th ult., at Fittlnyorth, near Petworth, the lady Of
the'Rev. R. Tredcioft, of-a daughter. •
On the 30th ult., at- Gladwins, Essex, the lady..of the R
Thomas Cla-vton Glyn, of a daughter.
On. th'e 3.1•;t nit:, at his house in Lower G'rosvenor-street,
lady of Edward Bunn, Esq., "of a•sona- • • • -
On the Ist inst., in Percy-street, Bedford-square, the lady of
William Bode, Esq., of a smi.

• ' MARRIED. _. • ,
--On the Ist June, at Fulham Church, by the Rev. William
Wood, Mr. F.dtimati Lipid, of garlcy-street, tp Mary Anne,
eldest.daughter of Kenftek Collett, 'Esq., of Chancery-lane, and
Holcrofts, I,u/halo. •
• On the 3/st ult., ix St. John's, Hackney, William (4uarles,
Esq., of Foulsham;,solicitiir, to Sarah Lawrance, only daughter
ofJosepli Of LlpperClapton.
-On' th e Ist' ingt., -at St. A'rm is, Soli(c, by the Rev. Dr, Clark&,.
and afterwards at the Chapel of the Sardinian Ambassador,
Arthur Burrow, Esq., of` lianlev, Staffordshire, and St. John's i
Wood, to Caroline; daughtei of Antonio Gallassi, Of Carlisle-
street, oho-squitre. '

. --
On the Ist inst,., at Camberwell, the Rev. James Thomas
Du Boulity, 31. A: Fellow of Exeter College, Oxfoid. to Susan
Maria, eldest daughter. of Seth 'Ward; Esq., of the for Mer
place:

At Lichfield, on the 30th ult., in the 78th year of his age..
General yyse, Colkel of the 3d, or Prince of Wales's Dragoon
Gliards. • ' • •
On Friday last,in his nth year, at the vicarage-house, Can-
: ningLyn, in the county of So.nerset, the Rev. Charles Henry
clerk, vicar or that' parish, one of the Chaplains in Ortli-
nary to his Royal 'Highness the Duke of Sussex, and to the
Risht Hon. Lord ciray, and also one of the Justices of the
',Peace for the county of Somerset, and retired Chaplain to the
24th reiment of Light Dragoons.
On Sunday I'asi,lllx...Joseph Aldwinkle, of Mark-lane.
On the 31st ult., at:Wadtlon, Surrey, Mary, wife of panic.'
Richard Wnrington, Esq.'
On Monday, the 30th ult:, at Nottingham, Sarah, the wife
of Mr: William ;Wilson.

__—
Prihtell and Pnbit lied for the PIIOVIIIETORS, 'at tbe"Euk.
OFFICE, No. 112, Strand, by J. fl. CARSTAIRS.