The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-21 00:00:00

THE EARL OF RIYFON V. HOBART.

In this case, which was a motion for an injunction to
restrain the defendant from erecting a steam engine en
certain property in Lincolnshire, .

Mr. PEI;YS stated that he was not prepared to make the
motion, in consequence of being unable to get the affidavit
of Sir John Rennie, in answer to affidavits made on behalf
of the defendant since the matter was last before the Court.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Sir EDWARD SUGDEN
opposed the application.

His HONOUx allowed the motion to stand over till the
First Seal, the undertaking of the defendant not to proceed
with the erection of the steam engine to be considered at
an end.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

DOE DEM. SMITH V. BIRD AND ANOTHER.

This was an action of ejectment, and a verdict was
found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court
o❑ three points of law, which arose on the will of a lady
named Warren. Those points were argued on a former
day, and this morning the Court gave judgment, by order-
ing the verdict to stand for the plaintiff, as to cert tin
parts of the estate devised prior to the year 1790, and for
the defendant as to those devised subsequently.

THE KING V. BURT.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT moved the judgment of the
Court upon Lieutenant Burt, R.N., who had pleaded
guilty to an indictment charging him with violently as-
saulting Captain Hodgson, of the 19th Regiment.
The defendant appeared on the floor of the Court.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT handed in a long affidavit of
the prosecutor's, which was read. It entered into a
long history cf the circumstances out of which the
assault originated. In June, 1830, the prosecutor
the defendant, and Lieut. D. C. Mills were members of
the Junior Unite] Service Club, when a quarrel arose
between 'Midi and the defendant, and a challenge was sent
from the former to the latter. The prosecutor was Mills's
second, and from some circumstances which occurred, an
inquiry took place by the Club, which ended in the de-
fendant's expulsion. On that inquiry, the prosecutor and
Captain Lowd (the defendant's second) gave evidence.
Shortly after the expulsion, the defendant sent the pro.
secutor a challenge, which, by the advice of his friends, he
declined accepting. The defendant was then under
sureties to keep the peace. A correspondence then ensued
between the prosecutor and Captain Lowd, in which the
latter used very insulting epithets towards the former, and
three months afterwards the defendant published a placard,
posting the prosecutor as a coward, one of the placards
being enclosed in a letter to himself by the defendant.
The prosecutor did not return any answer, conceiving
the defendant to be undeserving of notice. Shortly after-
wards being appointed to the 19th Foot, to the officers
of which he was previously unknown, he submitted all
the circumstances to them, and they approved of his
conduct. In a short time afterwards, Captain Lowd
was about to return to his Regiment in the West Indies,
and fearing he might carry reports prejudicial to the pro-
secutor's character, he wrote a letter to the Officers of
Captain Lowd's Regiment, in which he impugned the
courage and character of Captain Lowd, and also of the
defendant. In July, 1832, after leaving the Shooting
Gallery in the Haytnarket, he was walking in the street
with a friend, when he felt his arms suddenly held from
behind, and directly afterwards he received several severe
blows on his face, which drew blood, and severely injured
him. On turning round, he found the aggressor to be
the defendant, who immediately made his escape. The
prosecutor then applied to Bow Street, and had the de-
fendant bound over to the Sessions, from which place the
latter removed the indictment to this Court. •
Several affidavits were put in on behalf of bedefendant
(including his own). The defendant attributed his ex-
pulsion from the Club to ex parte anti unfounded state-
ments, and to the influence of the prosecutor and his
connexions. He denied that when he assaulted the pro-
secutor he had seized hold of his hands from behind (in
this he was corroborated by a casual passer-by) ; and said
that he had been induced to commit it from feelings of
indignation at the insulting language used by the prosecutor
in the letter he wrote to the West Indies. Captain Mills,
in his affidavit, attributed his quarrel with the defendant,
and subsequent challenge, to the prosecutor, but for whose
interference the matter in dispute might easily have been
made up.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT then addressed the Court for the
prosecution. He said be did not wish to go into all the
circumstances as far back as 1830, although the prosecu-
tor had thought it necessary generally to advert to them
in his affidavit. He thought it would have been better if
the two gentlemen would, instead of venting their angry
spirit upon each other, reserve it to a period when it
might be wanted for a better purpose, via., in the defence
of their country. It appeared that the United Service
Club, which was composed of men of honour and fine
feelings, had expelled the defendant, and Mr. Mills, from
some cause or other, was afterwards induced to leave the
Club. Then Captain Lewd wrote some very angry
correspondence, and Capt. Hodgson thought it necessary
to send a candid statement of the whole affair to Captain
L.'s regiment, to which that officer was about to return, fo-
fear of his carrying out any injurious reports. The de-
fendant for a considerable time had hoarded his animosity,
in order to let it looseon the first opportunity, and accord-
ingly he committed the very violent assault in question.
This was not a case in which the Court was called on to
punish a party for sending a challenge; the challenge had
been given and declined. The learned Counsel wished to
make a distinction between the two cases ; he would ad-
dress their Lordships not only as judges, but as gentlemen,
and he must observe, that a party who refused to accept
a challenge should be very guarded in his conduct, and
not insult or provoke any other person to an insult, for
there was nothing more contemptible than for a party, by
refusing a challenge, to shield himself from the conse-
quences of abuse.
Mr. RICHARDS followed on the same side.

Mr. HUTCHESON, for the defendant, denied the asser-
tion that the defendant had let his anger rancour in his
breast in order to let it out on the first opportunity. It
was not until the prosecutor had written what he called
the" candid" letter to the officers of Captain Lowd's re-
giment, and when it was referred to his brother in Lon-
don, and then to the defendant, that it was that aroused
him ; the last occurrence relative to Mr. Mills, out of
which the affair originated, was when the defendant posted
the prosecutor, and that was in Oct., 1830. If the
defendant had been inclined be could at any time have
sought out the prosecutor, and yet the Court were
required to infer that he let his anger rancour in his
breast. He begged the Court to look at the letter, in
which the prosecutor wrote to Captain Lowd's brother
officets, speaking of Captain Lowd, and of the defendant,
as wanting personal courage, and being beneath contempt,
and then say whether it was not calculated to wound the
feelings of the defendant.
SIR JAMES SCARLETT—That letter is not verified.

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE-It is in your own affidavit, and
it struck me as being highly improper.
Mr. HUTCHESON said, that was the " candid " report.
The Learned Counsel went through all the circumstances
of the case, and contended that the prosecutor, from his
very improper conduct, had not put himself in a situ ition
to demand a severe judgment on the defendant.
Their LORDSHIPS having consulted together--
1 kMr. Janina JAgICS PARKS delivered judgment. It