The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-05 00:00:00

GREVILLE V. STULTZ AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought on a writ ofe;ror to re
verse a judgment of outlawry, on the ground that the
plaintiff was beyond the seas and abroad in foreign
parts at the time of the issuing of the writ.
Mr. MARTIN, Q C., stated to the jury that it was the
first instance in his experience in which such an action
had been brought. The point which they would have
to try would simply be, whether the plaintiff, Robert
Fulke Greville, was beyond the seas and in foreign
parts on the sth of June last. Messrs. Stultz, the tailors,
were formerly the plaintiffs in this instance. The writ,
which was the preliminary of proceeding to out-
lawry, was a very old one. For that writ to be
of any value, it was absolutely essential that
the party against whom it was issued should be in Eng-
land at the time, or the proceedings to outlawry were of
no avail. In the event of the person not being in Eng-
land the proceedings would be set aside upon a writ of
error. It was on such a proc?eding that the present
action was founded. The Learned Counsel was then
proceeding to put in the report of a commission ap-
pointed to examine two witnesses in France, under the
authority of the Lord Chief Baron, when
Mr. BAsTow (for the defendants), took several tech-
nical objections to the commission.

After some considerable discussion, the case was per-
mitted to proceed, and
The Clerk read the examination of Adelaide Vanden-
hewn and another, which proved that the plaintiff had
resided in France for a period extending considerably
before and after the sth of June, 1845.
Mr. John Bevan stated, that he was in Paris during
the month of June, 1845, and, during that time he saw
Mr. Grevillo frequently. He was never more than three
days without seeing him. Is acquainted with his hand-
wr;ting, and the letter produced, with the Paris post-
mark on it, is in the handwriting of Col. Greville.
Mr. William Bevan, a partner in the firm of Bevan
and Anderson, stated that they were attorneys for the
plaintiff. The plaintiff had not been in England for
so:ne time. Witness received the letter produced in due
course of post. It is in the handwriting of the plain-
tiff. The other letters produced were also received in
a similar manner.

The three letters were then shown. One was dated
;he 29th of May, the second the 21 of June, and the
,hird the sth of June.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. BASTOW having addressed the Court on a tech-
nical point, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Baron PLATT and
Common Juries.)
WHITE V. HARDING.
This action, which was heard in part yesterday, was
brought for the purpose of recovering compensation in
damages for a series of assaul's alleged to have been
committed upon the plaintiff, partly by the defendant
himself and partly at his instigation.
Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. Charnoek appeared
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Corrie for the
defendant.

From the opening statement of Mr. CHAMBERS, it ap-
peared the plaintiff was what was termed "a process
server," and was employed by several attorneys for that
purpose, and among others by Mr. Greaves, the attorney
who was engaged in the present action, and who had
thought it necessary for the defence of his servant to
take the steps he had done upon the present occasion.
The plaintiff, in the exercise of his " professional
duties," was called upon to serve a writ upon a person
of the name of Etwall, for the sum of 3/. 10s.
The defendant was a person of considerable property,
being possessed of upwards of two hundred houses, and
employing a large number of hands in brick-making, in
the neighbourhood of Fulham, and Etwall was foreman
or managing man to the defendant at the time plaintiff
succeeded in serving him with the process. Upon the 3d
of June, a few days after the service of the writ, as
plaintiff was passing by the Crown public-house, in
Fulham, he was called in by the defendant, who
was standing at the bur drinking some brandy and
water, and while the plaintiff was drinking some beer
defendant rinsed his mouth with some of the brandy and
water of which he had been drinking and squirted it in
the face of plaintiff; not satisfied with a single per-
formance of this kind he rinsed his mouth again, and
again repeated the offensive conduct ; he then held up
his fist to plaintiff's face, and said, " If it was not for
the law I would teach you to serve writs upon my men."
On the 10th of June following he was again in the Crown
public-house, defendant was in the house also, and two
navigators subsequently entered. Defendant said he
would treat them with some beer if they would go and,
what he called, " tar" the plaintiff. Accordingly they
proceeded to the tap-room, where plaintiff was sitting
in what was called " the lawyers' chambers," a portion
of the " settle' which long usage had set apart as the
domicile of the plaintiff, and to the possession of which
he had obtained, if not an actual, at least a prescriptive,
right. Whatever might be the modus operandi of
tarring," the Court was not told, but immediately upon
the entrance of the " navies" into the " chambers" of the
plaintiff, they at once commenced " bonneting him,'
an operation which was performed by knocking the hat
of the plaintiff over his face, which, although it might be
considered as a source of " fun " to the defendant and
other spectators, was not altogether a matter of fun to
the individual who was operated upon. Not content
with the punishment already administered to the plain-
tiff, defendant said to the navies, " I will give you some
more beer if you will go and buy a candle and shove it
down that man's throat." A candle, or a rushlight, as
of
accordingly
eorbftuali enda
vf
eosm”
wonaes
ai t
neighbouring
evidence,shop,aad
proceeded to hold the plaintiff, while the other endea-
voured to force the rushlight down his throat. Other trials
yet awaited the unfortunate plaintiff, for as he was about
leaving the house a chaise cart was standing at the door,
in which was a bullock's pluck, which bud been pur-
chased by the owner of the cart as " food for his spaniels."
This treasure was forthwith seized by defendant, and
with it he proceeded himself to belabour most unmerci-
fully the luckless plaintiff. The Learned Counsel con-
cluded by stating that the present was not an ordinary
case of assault, but a most unjustifiable and a most unbe-
coming one, and hoped that the jury would, after having
heard the evidence he was about to offer, award such

of the de
hereafter, to prevent per.o
class of persons to
fendant from assaulting any of the.,
damages to the plaintiff as snhsoinnldthoepel
stautaetaiesnan example
which the plaintiff belonged, and who, though humble
functionaries of the law, were always entitled to receive
s
the fullest protection in the discharge of their onerous
and indispensable duties.
theSefavce facts
as witnessesstated bwye
there thenL Learned
called,Counsel,wh oseveraldeposed
ofo
whom appeared to entertain considerable ill-feeling to-
wards the defendant.
Mr. ICsrowLes, for the defence, said that he was sorry
t
that he should have to trouble the jury with evidence
upon this case, but it was necessary for him to do so, in
order to show that the treatment was not of so serious
a nature as had been described by his Learned Friend.
And, further to show that the case was neither more nor
less than the result of a foul conspiracy between some of
the witnesses, who were publican; and who enter-
tained feelings of jealousy and hostility to the defendant,
because, among the number of houses which he had
built, one of them was a public-house, for which he had
obtained:a lic,nse, and the men in his employ, amount-
ing to a very considerable number, were in the habit of
resorting there, and not to the houses kept by the wit-
nesses, as they formerly did.
A number of witnesses were called, chiefly con-
sisting of men in the employ of the defendant, who
stated that the plaintiff was in the constant habit
of getting drunk, in consequence of the exercise
of the privilege which he enjoyed as occupant of
the lawyer's chambers," which consisted in his
taking " toll" of all the liquor brought into the tap-
room, and that the treatment complained of was nothirg
more than he was in the constant habit of receiving
from the labourers who used the Crown public-house,
as a return for the constant levy thus exacted from
them by.the plaintiff; and some of them even stated
that the plaintiff had requested them to put the candle
in his mouth.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS replied.
Alr, Dam PLATT Summed up.