The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-12 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE KING V. CLARKE AND AUSTIN.
This was an indictment for an assault upon Francis Grindar,
a constable, in the execution of his duty. The defendant,
Richard Clarke, was an hotel-keeper residing at Bognor, and
on the 28th of October, Tipper, a collector of taxes, accom-
panied by Collins, a constable, called upon Clarke for a sum of
81. 2s. 2d., due for one years' land-tax. Clarke said he
would pay within a week, and asked Tipper whether he in-
tended to distrain ? Tipper said he would be obliged to do
so if necessary ; and Clarke replied if he touched anything he
would break his head. On the 29th of November following
Tipper came again, accompanied by Collins, and two other
constables, Grindar and Holding, who remained outside. Clarke
left the room to fetch money, and took that opportunity to
bar and chain the outer door. When this had been ascer-
tained by Tipper, he sent out Collins, who opened the door,
and admitted the constables, Grindar and Holding. Clarke
then returned into the room with two five pounds, and said he
would not pay until that thief-catcher, pointing to Grindar,
was turned out. By this time ten or twelve persons had
come into the room, evidently for the
,purpose of
assisting Clark, and on Grindar refusing to, go out,
Clarke desired his servant Austin to turn him out, and that
he (Clarke) would stand by him. Grindar was then forcibly
ejected. The Jury found the defendants guilty of the assault,
and also that the constables were there for the purpose of pre-
serving the peace.
A motion in arrest of judgment had been subsequently made
by Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS.
Mr. PLATT (with whom was Mr. JONES) was heard in sup-
port of the verdict. The question for their Lordships' consi-
deration was, whether Tipper was justified in bringing the con-
stables with him, to assist in levying the tax. That would
depend upon their construction of the 17th section of the 38th
Geo. 111., chap. 5, which provided that, in the event of a re-
fusal or resistance to the payment of these taxes, the collector
was authorised to call in the assistance of the constables, who
were required to be aiding in the premises at their peril. It
was evident, from the previous conversation with'Clarke,
Tipper had good reason to apprehend that there would re-
sistance, or perhaps a breach of the peace, and he wir, there-
fore fully justified in taking the constables with him.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS and Mr. LONG were 'aeard in sup-
port of the rule. The Learned Counsel con:tended that the
verdict was founded upon a misapprehension of the Act of
Parliament, for there was no proof that the defendant Clarke
bad neglected or refused to pay the tax, and it was only in
this event that the collector was authorized to call in the as-
sistance of a constable. The Act also limited this power to
warrants issued by the Commissioners of assessed taxes, but in
the present case there was no warrant produced, nor was there
any proof that Tipper had any warrant at all with him. Upon
these grounds he contended that the verdict could not be
maintained.

Lord DENMAN delivered the judgment of the Court. The
first act of violence had been committed by Clarke, who had
faste,l,,l ‘',or noon Tipper and Collins, and therefore they
were justified in calling in the assistance of the ennqtables out-
side. It was clear from this, that Grindar was there in the
execution of his duty, and that Tippar had some grounds, from
the previous conversation with Clarke, and from his fastening
the door, to apprehend that some mischief would ensue. The
Court was, therefore, of opinion that the verdict ought not to
be disturbed,

Affidavits in mitigation were then put in and rea?„, and
Mr. Serjeant ANDREWS having addressed the Court, on behalf
of the defendants,

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE pronounced the judgment of the
Court. It did not appear that there v!.3 any decided inten-
tion on the part of Clarke to resist the payment of the tax,
and as his conduct towards Geindar took place on the spur of
the moment, the Court ins not inclined to visit him with a
very severe punishrent, nor was the Court disposed to take
him from his family and business. The sentence was, that
he do pay to the King a fine of 501., and enter into his own re-
cognizances in the sum of 2001. to keep the peace for two
years. The Court would view the case of Thomas Austin,
the other defendant with more leniency, and the sentence up-
on him was, that he do pay the fine of forty shillings, and be
then discharged.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BLAKEMORE V. THE GLAMOROANSIIIRE CANAL COMPANY.
The judgment of the Court was this morning given in tt,is
long litigated cause, by Mr. Baron PARKE. The plaintiff: was
the proprietor of large works, named the Pcnturch 'Works,
situated on the river Taff. In the year 1790, the Company
was formed by Act of Parliament, by which the 4 were allowed
to make a canal of a certain width, &c. as soon as they had
raised the sum of 90,000/. On the 26t1 of April, 1796, the
defendants got the Royal Assent to another Bill, which gave
them other powers, and allowed t'nern to raise other 10,000/. ;
but by it they were bound to finish the canal and its extension
within two years, therefore 'ander these Acts the Company had
no right to make any otier alterations in their canal except at
their own peril. Ir. 1827, Mr. 'Blakemore brought an action
against the Company for damage done to his works
by the diminution of the water which flowed to them
from the river, in consequence of some alterations made by
the Company. On that occasion he obtained a verdict for
the full amount of damages laid in his declaration. The de
fondants carried the cause by a writ of error into the Exche-
quer Chamber, where the judgment was confirmed. They
afterwards carried it to the House of Lords, where the judg-
ment was again confirmed. Notwithstanding all that, the
Company continued to act in the same manner, and the plain-
tiff had again brought an action, which was tried before Mr.
Baron Alderson, and a verdict again found for him, with
5001. damages. A rule for a new trial had been obtained, and
very fully argued last term. The rule had been obtained,
first on the ground of the reception of improper evidence
that evidence was the verdict in the former trial, and the
objection to that was, that there was now a co-plaintiff,
named Rocker, who was examined as a witness on the for-
mer trial. They were of opinion that it was admissible
on the ground that Backer had no interest in the cause in 1827.
The second point was misdirection, as to the consequential
damages attendant upon the alterations made by the Company
in their locks. That point had been most clearly decided by
Lords Eldon, Lyndhurst, Wynford, and Brougham, as given
in Clarke and Fennelly's reports, page 125. They were there- ,
fore of opinion that the direction of the Learned Judge was
correct. The next point was as to the construction of the 7th
section of the Company's Act, which directed that all the
water not necessary for the Canal at a certain plae should be
secured to the plainttff by what was called a parVamentary wear.
Upon that point MD Baron Alderson was of the same opinion
as he entertained of the trial, and Barons Bolland and Gurney
agreed with him. He (Mr. Baron Parke) had some doubt
on the matter ; but as the majority were against him, that
point must also be settled for the plaintiff; besides, he was not
prepared to say that he was quite clear upon the point. The
last objection urged on the part of the defendants, was, that
the verdict was against evidence. It was clear, from the
Judges' notes, that there had been some waste of water. It
was a most difficult matter to say how much, but that was a
point peculiarly for the Jury. The rule for a new trial must
therefore be discharged.

The General Steam Navigation Company's mail
packet, the John Bull, from Hamburg, arrived off the Custom
House, at 10 o'clock A. M. 11th May, having made the passage
home in 50 hours, notwithstanding a strong head wind all the
way across. Part of the suite and the horses of his Royal
Highness the Duke of Cambridge came over in the John
Bull. The passengers expressed themselves highly gratified
with their accommodation on board, and also the speed of t}-ji,
superb steamer.
The John Bull made her last passa7, out, not as
was stated by mistake in the Hamburgh
gapers in 38 hours
from Gravesend to Cuxhaven, but to 38 hours from London to
Cuxhaven. Had she not be e:4-1 delayed for three hours in the
Elbe, and her progr
the night. further obstructed by the darkness of
„,.-0
tideleing directly against her, she would have
rrteformea the passage to Hamburg in 45 hours.
r'

PUBLIC DINNER.--.,0il friday, a company of up-
wards of eighty gentlemen dined in the County IZoonis; for
the purpose of celebrating the rcqurn of the Melbourne Admi-
nistration to office.—Aberdeen Herald.

Mr. W. H. Ireland, after struggling for many years
against poverty and misery, died within the last month in oh,-
scurity, and seemingly quite forgotten.