The Sun.
London, England, 1823-04-03 00:00:00

SPRING ASSIZES,

KINGSTON, TIMSDAY, APRIL 3.
BUUCIIETT V. BRISTOW.
This was an action for an assault. It appeared from the
statement of Mr. NOLAN' who opened the case, that the plain-
tiff; who is a farmer, and the defendant, Who is a butcher, are
both inhabitants of the parish of Sheerham. During the time
that the plaintiff was attending divine service at his pariah
church on Christmas-day, a brother of the defendant, along
with several other idle boys, went to the plaintiff's house, and
after creating a considerable riot before it, concluded their sports
by breaking tit windows. The plaintiff,' not altogether ad-
miring this mode of treatment, applied to the Magistrates for
redress ; and the conseqnence of this application was, that the
brother of the defendant was sentenced to pay aline, and to be
'imprisoned till that fine was paid. Tram 'this circumstance it
was supposed that the malice had arisen, which had induced
the defendant to commit that assault upon the plaintiff which
led to the present action. On the 27th of December last, the
defendant went to the plaintiff's house, and, after telling
him that his father was very Much vexed by the proceedings
which had been taken against his brother, proceeded to coni
plain of the conduct of a maid-servant of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff' said he would call the servant to answer for herself.
fhe dZfendant said that it was quite unnecessary to do so,
and began to be very abusive. The plaintiff then desired the
defendant to leave his house; the defendant refitted, and ia
consequence the plaintiff gave hiM two or three gentle pushes.
The defendant then left the house, and the plaintiff wishing to
see hint fairly off his premises, accompanied hits through a
meadow, which was in front of it. Whilst they were crossing
the field, the defendant turned round- on the plaintiff, Ailed,
to light him, and without any further notice hit him a blow ore
the right temple and brought him to the ground. Whilst the
plaintiff was tn this :prostrate condition, the defendant struck
him violently about the body, and continued to do so till one
of the plaintiff's servants came up, who heard the defendant
say, ".Now I will go, if you will let me.' Under these cir-
cumstances, the plaintiff came before a Jury of his country to
demand of them, not extravagant ,damages, but such serious
damages as would prevent the defendant from recurring to such
acts of violence in future.
Sarah Ensor, servant to the plaintiff, deposed that on the
27th of December last, the defendant, or the butcher, as she al-
ways called him, called on her master between three and four
&clock in the afternoon i • that she heard them conversing very
bluffly, though she could not tell ghat they said ; that she
afterwards heard her master tell the defendant to quit his pre.:
mites, and on his refusal gave him first one,. and then another
gentle shove ; that she then saw both panics go into the mea-
dow ; that when there the butcher challenged her master to
fight, and attempted to take off his coat ; that her master said,
" I don't want your coat off, I want you out of my premises ;"
that the butcher then stretch her master over the eye, and that
she being frightened, ran to a man servant who was thrashing
in the barn, to call upon him to assist her master that the
butcher had lately offered her first one guinea, and after.,
wards two guineas, if she would not appear as en evidence
against him.
On her cross-examination, she said that she never had
heard of her master sending any boys to prison for killing
sparrows—that she never heard the plaintiff say to the de-
fendatit—`!,Th--n you and your father ton ;" that the defendant
did go against the wall after one of the gentle :shoves that her
master gave him, but she could not tell whether it was in con-
sequence of it ; and that she never had said to any body that
her muster hail regretted that he had not knocked the butcher's
head off. Being desired to point out the parties ro the action,
she pointed out two men, one in stature about five feet ten ;
the other about four feet ten ; each with a bulk proportional
to his height: Great laughter was elicited in Court when she
pointed out the lesser man as the person who had committed
the assault.
Thomas Mercer deposed, that being called upon to run anti
prevent the butcher from killing his matter, lie ran to the place
where the squabble was. going on. On arriving there he found
his master defending himself against a blow of the butcher ;
shortly after his master fell, and the botcher did all he could to
keep him down. Whilst on the ground, the butcher repeatedly.
said, " Now, I'll.go, if you will let me."
Mr. Sergeant TADDY, for the defendant, contended that it
must be quite clear froth the evidence of the other aide, that his
client had been unwillingly engaged in this contest. Indeed,
it was not likely that &man of the demunitive size of his client
would ever attack such, a giant as the prosecutor was relatively
to him. Even if they were of opinion that his client bad been
the aggressor, he thought that, under the circumstances which
had been proved in evidence, one farthing damages would fully
meet the justice of the case.
The CurErlialtoN then slimmed up the evidence, and the
Ault immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages.
One
shilling. --
Je Hooper and Charles Bonnick, yoting men of respect.
able appearance, were indicted for assaulting -Robert Johnson
6n the King'S highway, in the parish of St. Olave, Southwark,
and taking from his person a watch and seals, and tis. in money.
There were six other indictments against the same prisoners for
dillbrent offences of the same nature; On two charges they
were acquitted ;• to lone they pleaded guilty; and on another
Bonnick was convicted, and _Hooper acquitted. The prisoner
Hooper was. sentenced to seven years transportation : the other
prisoner received sentence of death.