The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-11 00:00:00

BUTTON AND OTHERS.

This was an indictment at the instance of Mr. Lewis,
an extensive dyer in Oxenden-street, Haymarket,
against the defendants, James Button, George
Button, his son, Thomas Corduroy, and William
Wellesford, for conspiring together to de fraud him.
James Button had been in the service of the prosecutor's
father and of the prosecutor himself for upwards of 34
years, and had been promoted from an apprentice to the
situation of foreman of the works, and lived rent-free on
the premises. The other defendants had also been a
long time in his service. Mr. Lewis allowed those
who were employed in his establishment to dye their
clothes and those of their immediate relations, free
of expense. This privilege the defendants had
abused, as they had carried on an extensive busi-
ness on their account for some time with a number of
persons, and for their own profit, and bad con-
sequently defrauded the prosecutors of several
thousands of pounds. The goods they dyed
at the expense of the prosecutor in this
way mostly bore the initials of the defendants,
whose job it was. The defendants had all
pleaded not guilty, but Wellesford had retracted his
plea and pleaded guilty.
Sir F. Thesiger, with whom were Mr. Clarkson, Mr,
Peacock, and Mr. Ballantine, were for the prosecution;
and Mr. Sergeant Allen for the Buttons. Mr. Char-
nock was for Wellesford. Corduroy was undefended by
counsel.

A great deal of evidence was adduced on the part of
the prosecution, which showed that the Buttons parti-
cularly had carried on considerable business in the way
painted out.
i he case was adjourned.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 10.
DIONTAGUE LEVYSON V. Z kDOC AARON JESSELL.

In this case Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Simon ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Martin and another
Learned Gentleman fur the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Montague
Levi san, F diamond merchant, to recover compensation
in damage:, for a violent assault committed by the nefen-
dant, Mr. Zadoc Aaron desself, also a diamond merchant,
between two and three o'clock in the afternoon, upon
the 23d of April 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. Tne 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 cecasion. 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, his 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 flood
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 thnt 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 Pact of very great provocation on the part
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 upou the plaintiff.
The first plea was, that the assault was not committed
by the defendant ; and, 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 in the situation
of the parties should have recourse to the use of lan-
guage so offensive as that appears to have been which
was used upon the occasion complained of, and
still more, that the d fendant should proceed
to the brutalising arid degrading practice of inflicting
blows upon the plaintiff by his fists. It was a practice
always to he reprobated. Under all the circumstances
of die case, it would be for the jury to find a verdict for
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
up in 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
Wood flowed therefrom ; he further stated that,
in consequence of the effects of the blow. a tooth was
obliged to be extracted, the plaintiff was removed
very much agitated, and .some relief was of erded
to him in the Lord Mayor's Court by the
applicstion 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-
ff—Damages, 301.
BROUGHTON V. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
_ _ _

Mr. Knov,les and Mr. Warre❑ appeared for the Plain-
ff, and Mr. Martin and Mr. James fur the defendart.

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 01. 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 one month's notice as suffi-
cient. This resolution was passed 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 atuost, in summing up, told the
jury that, i❑ his opinion, the evidence of a general cus-
tom had not been sufficiently established ; and he
thought that the existence of the resolution re-
ferred to in the course of the proceeding was
certainly some evidence to set against the existence of a
general and well-known custom of that kind prevailing
among the servants of the company. Under these cir-
cumstances it would be for thejury to find their verdict
for the plaintiff, For the sum of 61. 13s. 4d., exclusive of
that paid jute court, that being the amount claimed by
the plaintiff
The jury accordingly returned a verdict in accordance
with the ruling of the Lord Chief Baron.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dee. 10.
PAPANICOLAS V. ABITBOL.
This was an action brought by a gentleman of the
name of Papanicolap, to recover from the defendant, a
sharebroker, 451., being the difference between a sum el
money lent by the latter on 200 Madrid and Valentia
railway shares, and their market value, on the 30th of
April, in the present year. From the statement of
Counsel for the plaintiff, it appeared that early in this
year the plaintiff was in want of money, and in order to
realise a sum he deposited the shares in question with
the defendant for the advance of 1501., with the under-
standing that the money should be repaid with interesi
on the 30th of April. On that day, about two o'clock,
Mr. Mullins, of the firm of Bush and Mullins, of St.
Mildred's-court, called at the defendant's offices and ten-
doted the money, vthich was refused on the allegation
that the tender being made after one o'clock, according
to the rules of the Stock Exchange, the shares were for.
feited. The defendant retained the shares, and hence the
present action.
Mr. Sergeant Byles conducted the case for the plain-
tiff, Mr. Hunaphre3s for the defence.
Ecidence having been called to prove these facts,
Mr. HUMPHREYS was proceeding to address the jury
on the alleged rule of the Stock Exchange under which
the contract was made, with the object of showing that
the money not being tendered before one o'clock the
shares were forfeited, when
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE decided against such a
defence. There was nothing in the contract itself, or
the evidence, to warrant that supposition ; and as the
issue in the pleadings was raised on this point, unless the
Learned Gentleman had evidence to offer in support of
it, the verdict must go for the plaintiff.
The Learned Gentleman intimated that he was not
prepared to offer any evidenc e on the point beyond what
was in poss-ssion of the Court.
Under his Lordship's direction, a verdict was then
given for the plaintiff for 451