The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-07 00:00:00

GEORGE V. JONES-ASSAULT AND DATTERY.

This was an action for breaking into and entering the
plaintiff's dwelling, for assault and battery, and also for
money due to the plaintiff and his wife for services ren.
dered to the defendant.

Mr. E. James and Mr. Prentice appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shea for the defendant.
From the opening statement of counsel and the evi-
dence it appeared that the plaidtiff, Wen. George, was a
young man who had been brought up to the medical
profession, and that the defendant, Dr. Griffith Jones,
held himself out to the world as a hydro-homoaopa.thic
doctor, and was the proprietor and seller of a patent
medicine called. "Baron Souville's Axtra Mankaz,"
which he advertised as a cure for constipation and various
other diseases, and as an agreeable substitute for cod-
liver oil, and which, it seemed, consisted of various fari-
naceous ingredients. The defendant took premises in
1853 at 496, New Oxford-stre,t, for the sale of this ar-
ticle, and employed the plaintiff to manage the business
and to lecture upon the virtues of the medicine, giving
him a salary of 61. a-week and apartments in the upper
portion of the house to reside in. The speculation, how-
ever, did not succeed, and in May, 1856. the defendant
resolved to shut up the shop, and requested the plaintiff
to quit his apartments, but he declined to do so until he
obtained lodgings elsewhere, and he made a demand of
15/. for the services of himself and wife, as well as 20/.
as compensation for the loss he had sustained in conse-
quence of his dismissal. He also insisted upon having
au acknowledgment of 1001., which he alleged the de-
fendant had borrowed upon a policy upon his (the plain-
tiff 's) life. To these demands the plaintiff received no
reply; but a few days afterwards a party of
about a dozen men, aimed with the authority of
Dr. Jones, as well as with various instruments,
forced their way into the rooms of the plaintiff, and
endeavoured to turn him and his wife out. He resisted,
and was roughly used in the struggle ; but the cries of
himself and his wife, who was enceinte at the time,
brought the police, whose remonstrances, and the plain-
tiff's promise to leave next day, induced the men to de-
sist from their attempt, but not until he had received
some severe blows and contusions, and, according to his
own account, been nearly strangled.
In cross-examination the plaintiff said about 12 years
ago he was an upholsterer and cabinetmaker. Before
he entered the defendant's service he kept a chemist's
shop at Pentonville for about two years, but he had not
been brought up as a chemist.
Lord Campbell inquired if he sold poisons ?
Witness—l sold mineral compound and vegetable
poisons.
In answer to further questions by the defendant's
counsel, he said he had never been educated as a practi-
cal chemist, but he had received an education from a
celebrated man in America, Dr. Beech, who formerly
kept a chemical school in Kennington-lane, Lambeth.
A large parchment skin was handed to the plaintiff by
his counsel, who asked him if it were not his diploma.
He replied in the affirmative, and said he had obtained
it through Dr. Beech.
The document, the size of which occasioned some
laughter in the court, was examined and read over aloud
by the learned judge. It purported to emanate from
the "Reformed Medical Society of the United States,"
at New York, and certified that, on examination, the
plaintiff had exhibited satisfactory evidence of his quali-
fications in the various branches of medicine on the re-
formed system, and gave him authority to practise the
various branches of the healing art in the United States.
In answer to Lord Campbell, the plaintiff said he had
never been in any part of the States.
Some other evidence as to the assault having been
adduoed,
Lord Campbell expressed his opinion that the trespass
had been clearly proved.
No evidence was given on the part of the defendant,
and
Mr. Sergeant Shee addressed the jury in mitigation of
damages.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 35/,
damages, for the trespass and assault, and 15/, for the
services of the plaintiff and his wife.