The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-29 00:00:00

V. ROBINSON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a mil-
liner, carrying on business at Great Driffield, against
the defendant, a draper, of the same place, for an
assault and false imprisonment. The defendant pleaded
first, not guilty ; secondly, that the defendant was first
assaulted by the plaintiff, and that what he did was
in self defence ; thirdly, that the plaintiff was standing
near the defendant's dwelling-house drunk, disorderly,
and riotous, and that he was obliged to give her into
the custody of a policeman. There were other pleas
to which the plaintiff rejoined that the defendant used
more force and violence than was necessary. Itappeared
from the evidence that the plaintiff was thedaughter of a
farmer residing in Yorkshire, and had for some time
carried on business at Great Driffeeld, and dealt -with
the defendant. She had for nine years kept company
with the defendant's brother Francis, and on the nig ht
of the 25th July she went several errands, and, amongst
others, to the B;ue Bell public-house, and ordered half
a gallon of gin for a friend. She partook there of a glass
of ale, and on her return home she waited near th
shop to see Francis Robinson. Instead of seeing him
she saw the defendant ; and as the brother's housekeeper
had had a child named Frankey, and probably from a
feeling of jealousy, she asked him "If he had been to
see Frankey." O❑ that words arose, and ultimately a
policeman was sent for, and she was given into,
custody. On her way to the police office she resisted
very much, and her clothes were nearly torn
off her back. She was locked up the whole
of the night, and on the following morning, at 11
o'clock, she was taken before a magistrate, who, after
hearing the charge, dismissed the case. The plaintiff
underwent a severe cross-examination to show that she
was addicted to habits of intemperance, and that she
bad been seen home drunk by a policeman, which she
denied. The defence was that the plaintiff was given to
drunkenness, and frequently annoyed the defendant
when she was in that state, from a belief that he had
been the cause of breaking off the intimacy between her
and his brother. On the night in question, about eight
o'clock, she was at the defendant's front gate very
drunk, and misbehaved herself. She was ordered off
twice, went away but returned again, and con-
ducted herself in a disgraceful manner, using disgust-
ing language, threatening to do for the defendant.
She was only partially dressed, having on a jacket,
a gown, and a pair of torn loose drawers at the police-
station, where she threw herself on the ground and ex-
posed her person in the most disgusting manner in th•
presence of several policemen, and asked one of them to
fasten up her drawers. Throughout the night at the
station-house she conducted herself in a violent man-
ner, screaming, &c., and at eight o'clock" the following
morning she had not recovered from her drunkenness,
and asked to be supplied with some gin, which was re-
fused her. She also said at the police-station that she
bad had nine children, and she did not care a d- who
knew it.

The defendant, in his examination, said that he had
been subject to great annoyance from the plaintiff. She
had forced her way into the house and threatened to be
the death of him, and that she would get some vitriol
and mark him with it.

The Learned Judge having summed up, the jury re-
dred to consider their verdict.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Before Mr. Justice Crowder and a Common Jury.)

The list this morning contained only the names of four
causes. The whole were devoid of public interest, and
the Court rive before twelve o'clock.