The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-29 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE KING V. O'GORMAN MAHON.
Mr. PLATT stated that this was ,an indictment against the
defendant for a most wanton and aggravated assault committed
by him on the person of Mr. Wigley, one of the attorneys of
this Court. In Feb. last, the present prosecutor was indicted for
perjury by Mr. Mahon. When the Counsel for the prosecu-
tion stated the case to the Court, Mr. Justice Coleridge, who
then presided, stopped the case, on the ground that if the evi-
dence should exactly come up to the statement, it would not
sanction the indictment. Mr. Wigley was therefore acquitted.
The parties then left the Court, and immediately afterwards a
noise was heard in the passage, and the parties came into
Court, and a complaint was made by Mr. Mahon that he had
' been insulted. It appeared that he had been served with a de-
mand for payment of money for some costs, which-demand it
was necessary should be served upon him personally. Of
course this was a matter in which the Judge could not inter-
fere, and the parties again left the Court. A second noise
outside the Court was then heard, and the present defendant
was brought into the Court in the custody of a police officer,
who had apprehended him on seeing him commit the violent
assault which was the subject of the present indictment. He
did not know whether the Jury were aware of the formation
and junction of the bones of the face, and he should, there-
fore, just mention that the bone which projected over the eye,
and protected it, was joined with the cheek bone at the upper
part of the side of the face. The defendant, who was a power-
ful man, struck the prosecutor some violent blows on the upper
part of the face, and drove in the bone at the point he had de-
scribed. The prosecutor's sufferings from this assault were ex-
treme ; and if this proceeding were an action to recover da-
mages for it, he should go at greater length into the detail of
them ; but as the nature of the assault was not now a ques-
tion for the Jury, whose duty it was merely to be satisfied
with the proof that the assuult had been committed, he should
not trespass further on their time.
Mr. WIGLEY stated the circumstances in the manner de-
tailed by the Learned Counsel.
Lord DEN MAN said that there must be a verdict for the pro.
secution, for the assault was most clearly proved.
The Jury accordingly returned a verdict of
The officer of the Court then directed the defendant's at-
torney to pay the Jury ; the defendant having taken out the
rule for the Special Jury. The direction was not at first
complied with. Subsequently a paper, apparently a check,
was produced, and was shown to the officers of the Court
and then offered to the Jury, but was not accepted by either
of them.
Lord DENMAN remarking the delay in paying the Jury,
said that the attorney ought to have provided himself with the
means of paying the Jury before he came into Court.-
The attorney made some observation, which was partly in-
audible. We understood him to say that it was not his fault,
but that of some other person.
Lord DENMAN said that the attorney was the proper per-
son to pay the money. The cause ought not to have been
made a Special Jury cause. The attorney ought to have se-
cured the means of paying the Special Jury before he took out
the order.
One of the officers soon afterwards cashed the check, and
the Jury were paid.