The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-10 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

MONTAGUE LEVYSON V. ZADOC AARON JESSELL.
In this case Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Simon ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Martin and another
Learned Gentleman for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Montague
LevNsan, a diamond merchant, to recover compensation
in damages for a violent assault committed by the defen-
dant, Mr. Zadoc Aaron Jessell, also a diamond merchant,
between two and three o'clock in the afternoon, upon
the 23d of Apra last.
It appeared from the evidence of the various witnesses
who were called, and the opening statements of the
Learned Counsel, that the assault complained of was
committed in the immediate neighbourhood of the
Lord Mayor's Court. The defendant was a young
and active man, as compared with the plaintiff,
and he was seen to inflict several very severe
blows in rapid succession upon various parts
of the plaintiff's person, but more especially directed
towards the head and face. The plaintiff was not seen
by any of the witnesses to strike the defendant
upon any occasion. At the conclusion of the at-
tack the plaintiff was carried away in a fainting state,
into the
.passage of the Lord Mayor's Court, where he
was seized with violent hysterics, bis right eye was
blackened, his left eye had a puff under it, occasioned
by the effect of a severe blow. His foreheed exhibited
several marks of blows, as well as his cheeks, and blood
was flowing profusely from his mouth. One of his
teeth was also knocked out. Prior to the attack several
of the witnesses stated that a great deal of angry lan-
guage was used upon both sides, and the plaintiff made
use of the expression, " I send you to Coventry."
It appeared that both of the parties were going to-
gether to the Bankruptcy Court. The plaintiff carried
on business as a diamond merchant. and the defendant
was assignee to the son-in-law of the plaintiff.
Mr. MARTIN, in his address to the jury, complained
that no evidence respecting the origin of the transaction
had been brought forward on the part of the plaintiff.
If such had been done, the jury would have had be-
fore them the fact of very great provocation on the Dart
of the defendant, and that the assault committed by the
plaintiff—what he did not for a moment mean to deny—
was committed under the excitement of very great pro-
vocation.

The LORD CHIEF BARON, in summing up to the jury,
said that the present action was brought to recover com-
pensation in damages for an assault upon the plaintiff.
The first plea was, that the assault was not committed
by the defendant ; arid, secondly. that the defendant
was only defending himself from the assault of the plain•
tiff. Upon both of these issues it would be their duty to
find a verdict for the plaintiff. From the evidence which
they had heard, it appeared that the first blow was
struck by the defendant. The language of the parties
appears to have been very strong ; expressions were
made use of which, no doubt, were very offensive. It
was much to be regretted that persons iu the situation
so offensive as that app
of the parties should have recoerairrssetotohtahvee
bueseenowf lan-
guagewhich
dd
of,
proceed ari
and
more,
stillwas used fondantuptehnatthetheoccdao
to the brutalising and deg n com
blows upon the plaintiff by his lists et was a practice
radingractice of inflicting
always to be reprobated. Under
a verdict for
of the case, it would be for the jury to find
all the circumstances
the plaintiff. It would be for them to say, in the ex..
ercise of their duty, what amount of damages the plain-
tiff was entitled to receive at the hands of the defendant.
It appeared that the injuries which the plaintiff received
were, at the moment, very severe; the plaintiff seemed to
have suffered very considerably from the attempt made
upon him by the defendant. From the evidence of his
medical adviser, it appeared that he received a blow upon
his right eye, and also one upon his left eye; he suffered
considerably from another severe blow on his cheek, and
his mouth was much injured, and a large quantity of
blood flowed
therefrom ; he further stated that,
-
in consequence of the effects of the blow. a tomb
obliged to be extracted, the plaintiff was removed
very much agitated, and some relief was afforded
to him in the Lord Mayor's Court by the
application of cold water and other restoratives.
Upon his arrival home it appeared that he sent for his
medical adviser, and although no bones appear to have been
broken, yet there was no doubt that the injuries were
very considerable. With reference to the arguments of
the Learned Counsel for the defendant, that the plain-
tiff ought to have given evidence of the circumstances
which gave rise to the hostile collision. In his opinion
the case would have assumed a far more serious aspect
if such a course had been adopted, and if it had been
shown that there was anything like malice or ill-feeling
rankling in the breast of the defendant towards the
plaintiff. The only question, then, for the jury to
decide, would be the amount of damages to which the
plaintiff was entitled.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages, 301.
BROUGIITON V. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Warren appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Martin and Mr. James for the defendant.
The plaintiff was a clerk in the above-named com-
pany. In the beginning of the present year he was dis-
charged by the defendant, at a month's notice. The
present action was brought to recover a larger amount
of salary than that for one month, he being entitled
to receive a larger amount of notice than one month, in
consequence of the engagement made with him having
been an annual one.
On the part of the defendant it was contended, that
one month's notice was ample and sufficient, and a sum
of 91. 17s. 3d. was accordingly paid into court; that the
general custom of railway companies was to give one
month's notice to the persons employed by them; and
further, that a resolution had been passed by the di-
rectors of the company, to the effect that all the persons
in the employ of the Eastern Counties Company
were to consider cue month's notice as suffi-
cient. This resolution was passeJ in the year 1841,
but no proof was given that such a resolution was known
to exist by the employers of the company.
The LORD CHIEF BARON, in manning up, told the
jury that, in his opinion,
flee
had not been suffic'eieenlliydtenecsetabolfishae
thought that the existence of the resolution re-
gde;nearanldeuhs•e•
ferred to in the course of the proceeding was
ertainly e eeit:enee to set against the existence of
general and well-known custom of that kind prevailing
among the servants of the company. Under these eir•
cumstatices it would be for the jury to find their verdict
for the plaintiff, for the surn;of 6/. 13s. 4d., exclusive of
that paid into Court, that being the amount claimed by
the plaintiff.