The Sun.
London, England, 1814-01-26 00:00:00

or inc.l4,unce of a ec ,
Yclyecl "t
by that time a fa"voufable challgc niight have tttken
1 lace in the weatlfer.,

Mr. ABBOTT thought the delay asked era" too
long.
Lora, ELLENRoitddolt Wa3 of opinion, from tip--,7
pearantes, that the Otileetation expressed by Mr.
Bailey was sufficiently sanguine ; and 'tilt Rule,
teas accordingly enlarged for a

tONSISTOItr. COURT, DOt:'fOßS' COMMONS, iAN_, 95,

PARNELL V. PARNELL.

This was .a Proceeding of Divorce brought by
the Committee of Peter Parnell, the husband (Ire
being a lunatic), against Ann Parnell, his wife,
by reason of adultery alleged to have been com-
mitted with Philip Crack ; and the question be-
fot-e the Court was, xvhethett a COmmiftee ap-
pointed by the Lord Chancellor (a commission of
lunacy, having been taken. out against the lunatic)
had the power to institute thelbove proceeding.
The Learned Judge (Sir Anq:, SCOTT)
clearly of opinion, both upon principle and ana-
logy, that the, power of the Committee.to insure
the -suit must. be upheld, he having the care of
person of the lunatic, and also:the care 'orall his
.property, and thcrefore the --Court admitted the

SECONDARIES OFFICE, JAN. 25.

INQUISITION OF DAMPIES.—SMITII S. IIAWKINS.
'.This was an inquisition to assess damages, in
an action of assault .and false .iMprisonment, in
which Mr. James Smith, of Watling-street, was
the plaintiff, and Hawkins, one of tlle -City Of-
ficers, was the defendant. The defendant' had
'allowed judgmeneto go against hint by default.—
Mr. LRSKINE opened the pleadings.
Mr. SCARLETT stated_ the plaintiff's case. The
-.defendant, by suffering judgment to go Agai:lst
hitn by.default, had withdrawn himself:front the
censure which his conduct "would have vrobably
received from high authority, if the case had
been tried ,before another tribunal ; but lie had
not withdrawn himself from the responsibility to
pay such damages as a respectable jury, duly valuing
the protection and liberty of the sub Sect,• should
award against him. The Jury were to consider
how far it was to be en.lored in this
:country, that
a peaceable and respectable inhabitant of the city
of London should be dragged from his house in
the middle of the night, and immured lei a prison,
from the wanton abuse of the authority of a City
Officer. The circumstances of the case which he
bad to state were briefly these :—The plaintiff' was'
the owner of considerable warehouses ill Wat-
ling-street, a titan most respectable in character
and. situation in life, and Churchwarden of the
parish in which he resided. He had a brother of
the name of ThOmas, who lodged in the Adelphi,
but who being on the 13th of December, 1812,
in the city, took a hackney-coach to his brother's
house. The driver of it demanded four shillings
for his fare but Mr. Thomas Smith said that two
shillings was hi's fare, and he would give nu more.
The man then consented to take three shillings,
but this- being also refused, he went away, and
said lie should summons Mr. Thomas Smith. He
called several times after at the house of Mr.
James Smith., where he was informed that Mr.
Thomas Smith did not reside there, but had gone
to Scotland. Tie nevertheless obtained stumnon7
ses from the Lord Mayor to -Mr. Thomas Smith,
to attend upon this complaint, which summonses
were directed to the house Of Mr. James Smith.
On the third summons, Mr. James Smith thought
proper to attenet before the Lord Mayor, and as-
sured his Lordship that his brother, who had
the dispute about the fare, was then in Scot-
land, but that he had no objection to pay three
shillings. He was then informed' at the office
that there was a guinea to be paid for expences,_
which he refused to pay. A warrant was then grant-
ed on the 23d of August to bring Thomas_Sinith
before the Lord Mayor. This warrant Was not
attemptel to be put into execution until .the 13th
September ; and.. when Mr. James Smith had
knocked at his own door about twelve o'clock at'
night, he was seized by the defendant tvho told
him that he was his psisnner. He wished to be
allowed to go into his house to speak to his ser-
vants, but was not permitted. The plaintiffs.
porter, who opened the door, and others of his.
family, assured the defendant that this • was
not Thomas Smith, but James Smith. The beadle
of the parish, and other persons, assured him of
the same thing, and advised him not to take him
to the watch-house, but still he persisted in doing
so. At the watch-house he was also informed,
that it was not Thomas Smith, but nevertheles,
he brought him to the Poultry-Compter, where be
was imprisoned for a whole night, and was only
libenited on the next morning, at the intervention.
of Alderman' AnSley. These circumstances were
accompanied with a great deal of insult and vio-
lence on the part of the defendant ; and he trusted.
that- the Jury would consider an outrage of this
'nature as a case that called for exemplary damages.
When he saw the Gentlemen who were employed.
for the 'defendant (the City Counsel) he hail the
satisfaction of thinking, that what damages they
should award would be paid, as lie conjectured;
That if he was to be defended from the City purse,
his damages might also,' be paid from the same
quarter. He then expatiated, with considerable
feeling upon-the aggravated injury of turning the
authority of the law into a means of insult and
oppresssion, and called upon the 'Jury to give
such damages as they would think ought to be
given,ii-• one Of them had been subject to the sane
treatment. -
T. Gutridge, the plaintiff's clerk, proved the
dispute about the fare as stated, and that the
coachman had called at different times afterwards,
at Mr. J. Smith's house.
T. Stevens, the plaintiff's -potter, proved that
the defendant had seized the plaintiff at his own
door in the manner stated.
Some particulars were stated of the hardships
of the. plaintiff's imprisonment, in the Compter ;
but it was considered that the regulations or bad
accommodations •of that prison were not proper
matter of aggravation against the defendant.'
Mr. COMMON SERJEANT spoke at considerable
length on the part of the Defendant, after which,
The SECONDARY summed up the evidence in a
very able manner, and the Jury, after withdraw-
ing for a short time, brought in their verdict.--
Damages 2001.