The Sun.
London, England, 1823-06-26 00:00:00

LAW. INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Just
ASSAULTAND IMPRISONMENT:
MARTIN mni,iVirit, Sv AvbU itakD Two_ .OTIIEna.
This was an action against the defendants for asiaulting and
falsely • imprisoning th e, plaintiff 's. wife.
Mr. SCATILETT and Mr. PHILLIPS were for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. AlAntitATT and Mr. PLATT for the•deferidants.-
The plaintittwas a,paper hanger, in Regent-street, Oxford-
street, "and the defendant Mr. Weaver, was a feather-dresSer,
in Tottenham-court-road. The other defendants, Wright and
Williams, were officers of the peace, the one beir,, a constable
and the other a watchman. It appeared that the plaintiff's
wife had sent some feathers to the defendant,_ Mr. eaver, to
be dr,;ssed, and on the evening of the 21st December last she
called at his
~shop, and accused him. of
.changing her property
and substituting other feathers instead of her own.; An alter-
cation ensued—ii crowd gathered round the door—the constable
and the watchman were called in—hands were laid on Mrs.
Martin, and.she was sent to the .watch-house, whence, after a
short confinement, she was liberated.
The defence set up was that Mrs. Martin had grossly mis-
behaved Herself, abused Mt. Weaver in the twit opprobrious
' terms, bred a riot in the street, and after every attempt had
been made to pacify her, the constable and watchman thought
it their duty to take her to the watch-house for disorderly con.
duct, and after a very short detention she was. discharged.
The CHIEF JUSTICE told the Jury that the defendants,
Williams and Wright, were intitled to a verdict, the action not
having heed brought within three months, and as to the de-
fendant Weaver, they would determine upon the conflicting
evidence whether any assault had been committed.
The Jury. immediately found their verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jusrte 25.
THE FIRE IN 'WATLING-STREET.
TIIUILTXL7.. BEAUMOST.
This was an action to recover 1,9001. from the County Fire-
office, on a policy of insurance against fire. The plaintiff was
a warehouseman In the city ; the defendant was the Secretary
of that office. The fire by which the lose' had. arisen happened
on Sunday, the 26th of January last, in Watling-street. The
defence was two-fold in its nature--drat, that the goods in the
warehouse, on which the policy had been effected, did not
amount to the sum claimed ; and, secondly, that the warehouse
had been wilfully set on fire.
The first witness was the plaintiff's brother, and he swore 11
that he had been entrusted by the plaintiff with the care of the
warehouse, but that he had, Without the knowledge of his bro-
ther, slept away from the warehouse for some tune; that on
the night iti question he went to a friend, whom he subse-
quently took to the Opera ;- and he positively swore that he
knew nothing of the lire until ten in the morning, when a
washerwoman brought the Intelligence to the house where be
slept.
'Other witnesses were called for the purpose of proving the
value of the goods to haver been equal to the amount now
claimed.
The Counfel forithe defendant, after stating the nature of
the defence, proceeded to call witnesses to answer the case
thus made out for the ,ptaintiff. The firs( part of the evi-
dence consisted of a schedule and petition of the plaintiff;
under which he sought, not long before the fire, to take
the benefit of the InsolVent Act, and these were put in for the
purpose of sheaving that at the time stated he was. not in a con.
dition to have effected the purchases sworn to' with his own j
money. The second point of defence was attempted to be made
out by callingtwo,witnesses, the first of whom was the mistress
of the house where the plaintiff's brother went to sleep on the
morning its question: This woman swore that she was in the
room where the plaintiff's brother and his mistress were sitting
a short time previous to the fire—that he was telling the lat-
ter of the circumstances of his distressed situation, when she
said, " Well, really, if I was you I would sell off all the
goods, and set fire to the warehouse;" to which he answered,
" Now, Mary, don't talk so; for if any body was to hear you,
and such a thing was to happen, they would say that I did
set fire to it." The Witness further swore, that she let the
plaintiff's brother into her house at a quarter to five o'clock in ;
the morning of the fire ; that he then went to bed, and did not
stir out of the house until ten o'clock in the morning, when he
was informed that his warehouse was on fire, on which be
dressed himself very deliberately, greased his boots, and went
out. The second witness on this part of the case swore, that
the plaintiff's brother had asked bun to have a house taken in
his name, which. the other was to furnish, go it insures', and
then get away the goods, and set fire to it. Witness rejected
the proposal at once.
On his cross.examination he admitted having continued in
the service of the person whom he thus accused some time after
this proposal, and that he did not threaten to tell of this until
after the plaintiff's brother had put off the payment of some
money due to him. fie then threatened to tell in order to
, get his money.
r In reply, to this evidence the plaintiff called two witnesses,
the finitof whoin 'swore that he was in company with the plain_! tiff's brother from seven o'clock in the evening of the 25th of
January until nearly five the next morning, when he quitted
hint as had been described; and as witness passed the florae
(luards, the clock struck five.
The second witness deposed to having raised a sum of more
than 1,0001. it) order to enable the plaintiff to go into business.
In the course of the examination of one of the plaintiff's wit-
tmes, Mr. Serjeant Toddy, who held a brief in the cause,
asked when the plaintiff disappeared from Norwich?
Mr. Justice Park, seeing the witness hesitate, said—l do not
think that is a proper question to be put to a. 'witness. To
" disappear" means, in the way in which you have used it,
to depart clandestinely. Now there is,not the slighest imputa-
ration of the plaintiff' e having done so.
Mr. Sergeant Taddy—My Lord, I do not think the ',Ord
bears such an interpretation.
Mr. Justice Park..4t does, in my comprehension, and I do
not think you have put the question fairly to the witness.
hlra.nSieirnjic)auntattTioinid.ely—My Lord, I do not think. I deserve
such
Mr. Justice Park--Imputation, Sir ! Ido not know what
imput-
ing; na ineya
tilianngd
tdesireuth. a
,tr yhoaut wi s i .)nt ottheelisaragya
foranie wth
Counselim pu
tot-
address the Bench.
Mr. Sergeant Taddy—Nor is that the way for a Judge to re-
prove an Advocate.
Mr. Justice Park—l know my duty as a Judge, Sir.
Mr. Sergeant 'faddy- And I know mine as an Advocate, my
Lord; nor will I be directed by any one in my duty.
Mr. Justice Park—l protest you will oblige me to exercise
my power, Sir.
Sergeant Taddy—yonr Lordship may do just what you
please.
Mr. Justice Park seemed at first much agitated, but after-
wards said--Sir, I shall show:the forbearance of a Christian
Judge, in not exercising my power.
Mr:Sergeant Taddy—Vour Lordship may display what for-
bearance,
or exercise what power you please. lam ready to
submit to whatever you may determine, and lam quite indif-
ferent ea to, the result.
Mr. Sergeant Lens was rising, apparently with the intention
of mediating between the parties, when he was stopped by
Mr. Sergeant Taddy, who sait-:-" I beg, Brother Lens, you
will not say anything ; 1 must .defend my own conduct frotn,
imputation and the consequences myself."
Justice Park-4- Brother Lens base right tube heani in
addressing the Court."
. Mr. Serjeant Toddy—" Not while lam in possession of the
Court, my Lord, examining a witness."
JumiCe rit;l4 m intaioatiadignifiedsilence,.andthecause
proceeded.
The Jury, after having beard the evidence very fullyand ably
summed up to them by his Lordship, returned overdid-foe the
plaintiff: Damages, 1,9001.
The trial lasted from ten o'clock in. the morning until half.
past six .in the evening.