The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-03 00:00:00

POCOCK V. NICHOLLS. -ASSAULT AND SLANDER.

Thii was an action to recover damages for an
assault and slander. The defendant pleaded not
guilty, and that the alleged slander was true in
substance and fact.

Mr. sergeant Shee and Mr. Udall were counsel
for the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear.
It appeared from the statement of counsel, and
the evidence of the plaintiff, that he is a surgeon
and accoucheur in extensive practice at Brixton.
The defeudan', Mr. J. Nicholls, is an attorney, a
member of the firm of Nicholls and Doyle, of Gray's-
inn, and up to December last resided at Eaton
Villas, Loughborough-park. Mr. Pocock had been
for some time the medical attendant of the defen-
dant's family, and attended Mrs. Nicholls in her
confinement. In October last he was in a:ten lance.
On the 16th he called and saw Mrs. Nicholls ; the
defendant was present part of the time. .On the
18th the plaintiff was much surprised at receiving
the following letter "
Dear Sir,--I regret I must request you not to call
or have any further intercourse with any of my family.
I will be obliged if you will favour me with your ac-
count.—Yours truly, "J. NICHOLLS."
• The plaintiff at once replied, expressing his sur-
prise and hope that an explanation would remove
any misapprehension the defendant was labouring
undfr. The defendant then wrote the follow-
ing letter :
"Dear Sir,— lam favoured with your letter of the
18th instant, and I will not disguise from you that Mrs.
Nicholls is labouring under an imputation of impro-
priety of conduct with you, and that the consequences to
herself and her family may be heavy. Now, sir, some
impropriety has paseed between you. What that some-
thing is, I ask at your hands. "J. NICHOLLS "
The next day the defendant called on the plain-
tiff and asked fur an explanation. Mr. Pocock said
he had none to give, and expressed in the strongest
terms his surprise and indignation, and asserted the
complete innocence of his conduct towards 'Mrs.
Nicholls. Be became very violent, and would not
leave the house f.)r some time. The plaintiff then
requested his solicitor, Mr. Impey, to call on Mr.
Nicholls. Mr. Impey did so, and. repeated Mr.
Pocock's assertion of his innocence. Mr. Nicholls
renewed his chargw, and added, "If he will admit
the patamity, and take the child, I will let him
live. On the 2-Ith of October Mr. Pocock was
served with a writ in an action of trim. con.
Notice of trial had since b3en twice agrved in that
action, but afterwards withdrawn, On Mondry,
the 20th of O.A.,bJr, the deLndant called at the
plaintiff's house, and was shown into the consulta-
tion room. The plaintiff again repeated he had no
explanation to give but to deny the charge. The
defendant then lifted a large stick and struck at the
plaintiff, who retreated into the surgery, and en-
deavoured to shut the door. He received a violent
blow on the temple, which caused a large lump, but
was eventually rescued byMr. Impey, who happened
to be in the house, and the servants. The plaintiff
was afterwards informed that the defendant was very
violent in his thieats against him, and therefore
had him summoned to the polioe-office, where he
was bound over, himself in 2001., and two sureties
in 501. each. Mr. Pocock was afterwards obliged
to take out a second summons, in consequence of
the defendant persisting in annoying him in the
street. The defendant had left the neighbourhood
in the end of December, but the plaintiff now sought
compensation for the assault, and such damages for
the slander as would vindicate his character from
so serious a charge.
Mr. Impey was examined, and he confirmed the
plaintiff's statement as to the assault, and deposed
to the words used by the defendant.
Two of the defendant's servants proved that be
had repeatedly made the charge against the plain-
tiff.

Lord Campbell, in summing up, said that the
charge made against the plaintiff was the most seri-
ous and frightful that could be made against a
medical man, and they ought to give him such
damages as would completely viudicate him. He
felt bound to say that ,the plaintiff left the court
without the slightett stain upon his character.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages 250/.