The Sun.
London, England, 1824-01-07 00:00:00

VERDICT

THURTELL, AND -HUNT.

The Learned Judge having qortincte(l, the sum,;
ming up of the tvitiencel the .turf- immqcljntely

retired.—After deliberating for a thort time, they

returned a verdict of GUILTY, against J. Thur•

tell and Joseph Hunt.

Some motions will be made in arrest of jag.

ment.

THE CASE OF CONNOLLY.

The following case ,;•eerns to apply to a lat.':
unfortunate occurrence :

COOK'S CASE.-CRO. CAR. 537.

Cook was indicted for the murder of Marshall. Upon his
arraignment, pleading not guilty, 'it was that Marshall
was a Bailiff to the Sheriff of and had several warrants
upon several capias ad satisfaciend.; against the Said Cook and
his father, directed unto him and other bailifly ; and that they
by virtue thereof, entered into the said Cook's stable and out-
house, and hid 'themselves there all night .; and at eight of the
clock next morning, came to Cook's dwelling-house, and called
him to open his doors and suffer them to enter, because they had
such warrants upon such writs, at the suit of su ch persons to arrest
him, and willed him toobey them. But thesaid Cook commanded
them to depart, telling them they should not enter; and thereupon
they break a window, and afterwards came unto the door of the
said house, and offered to force that open, and brake one of the
hinges thereof. Whereupon the said Cook discharged his
musquet at the said Marshall, and stroke him, of which stroke
the day following he died. And whether upon all this mat-
ter, he be guilty of murder or of manslaughter, was the doubt.
And it was now argued by Rolls, for Cook, that it was not
murder ; for although a bailiff were slain,. yet it was by his
own procurement, in doing an unlawful act, viz. in breaking
the window and door, and attempting to enter'and serve process,
which is not lawful for a personal duty, unless in the King's
case : Sand fur thatpurpose, he cited Co. lib. 5. fole9l, Searnayne s
case, 13 Edward IV. And after argument at the bar, all the-
Justices seriatim delivered their opinions, that it wasnot murder
but manslaughter only ; for although he killed a bailiff, yet
he killed him not in duly executing process ; for it was not
murder unless there be malititia prcecognita or malitia impli-
cita' as to murder one suddenly, or in resisting of an officer dur-
ing his office, by serving the process of the law, wherein he is•
assisted cum potentate regis et legis. But here this bailiff was
slain in doing an unlawfitl act, in seeking to break open the
house to execute process for a subject, which he ought not to
do by the law. And although he might have entered, if the
door had been open, and arrested the party, and it had beeh
authorityu
lawful ; yet he ought not to break open the house, for that is
not warranted by ; and especially lying there in the night,
and in the morning breaking the window and offtring to force
orethe tilnoaoyr, which,enterwho
is
hnaotth sot iof It'e reanbyl e
s; feohr ndercolour
l tol andt
thereofvery
one is to defend his own house. Yet they all held it was
manslaughter ; for lie might have resisted him without killint
him; and when he saw him and shot voluntarily at him, it was
manslaughter.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, J. a.
MOUNCEY V. TIETZEN.

This action was brought to recover a compensation in damag
for a personal injury sustained by the plaintiff, and for the loss
of his horse, occasioned by the negligence of the defendant's
servants in driving his cart, so that it overturned the cart of the
plaintiff.
The plaintiff in this caseillas a milkman, who, at 3 o'clock in
the morning of the 10th Sept. 1822, was driving his cart with
cans, down the 111ile-end-road, to obtain milk as usual, for
the supply of his customers. When he had passed the Lon-
don Hospital, he was met by the cart of the defendant, coming
with fish to Billingsgate-market ; the vehicles came violently
in contact; the plaintiff's horse was killed on the spot, and the
plaintiff thrown out and his leg broken. He was carried o the
London Hospital, where he remained fourteen weeks in a'state
of great suffering, and will probably never entirely recover the
free use of the fractured limb. Several. witnesses ascribed the
accident to the violent driving of the defendant's servants, while
others imputed it to the plaintiff's own misconduct.
The Jury, after a few words from the Loan CHrEF Jos-
T ICE, leaving the case entirely to them, found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages 160/.