The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-28 00:00:00

LAW' INTELLIGENCE. Jan. 27.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sitting in Banco—(Before the Lord Chief Baron,
and Barons Bramwell, Watson, and Channell.)
COWARD V. BADDELEY.-WHAT CONSTITUTES AN
ASSAULT?

"On this case, which has attracted considerable
Public attention, not only as involving the conduct
of some members of the police force, but of raising
the question—what constitutes an assault ?—being
called on,
Mr. Sergeant Shee said—ln this action, which
was tried before Mr. Baron Bramwell, at the sit-
tings at Guildhall, and in which a verdict was
found for the plaintiff, with damages of £lO, I have
to move, pursuant to leave reserved, to enter the
verdict for the defendant. It was an action for
assault and false imprisonment, to which the de-
fendant pleaded, firstly, not guilty ; secondly, that
the plaintiff had first assaulted the defendant ; and
thirdly, that the plaintiff had, within the metro•
politan police district, first assaulted the defendant.
and the defendant gave the plaintiff into the cus-
tody of the policeman who had view of the assault.
The Lord Chief Baron—On what plea do you
move to enter the verdict for the defendant ?
_ _

Mr. Sergeant Shee—On the second, my lord.
The'plaintiff is a gentleman of respectability, con-
nected with the financial department of the Morning
Post, and on the 31st of October, 1858, he dined
with a gentleman at Highbury. He was returning
rather late to the Morning Post office, when, on
passing Islington-green, he saw a fire, around which
a great number of persons were collected, and
amongst them the defendant, Mr. Baddeley, who
was employed directing a brigade of firemen, and
actually had the hose in hand playing the water on
the house which was on fire. The defendant had
been employed for a considerable time by the parish
as the director of its fire-brigade, and there could
be no doubt—indeed it could not be denied—that
on the occasion in question he was employed in the
ordinary execution of his duty. The plaintiff,.Mr.
Coward, on arriving at the fire, appears to have be-
come very much excited, inasmuch as several per-
sons, and amongst others the inspector of police,
were under the impression that he was intoxicated.
The Lord Chief Baron—Had the plaintiff any
personal interest in the fire ?
Mr. Sergeant Shee—No, my lord. However the
result of the evidence was that this gentleman was
not intoxicated although he had been spending the
evening comfortably with his friend. But he was
very much excited at the fire.
The Lord Chief Baron—There is no doubt ()Teat
excitement at a fire.

_
Mr. Sergeant Shee—Mr. Coward appeared to
think that the defendant was not taking proper
steps to put out the fire—that he was wrong in
directing the water on the burning house, and
would have done better if he had directed his
efforts to the adjoining house. Be this as it may,
the plaintiff crossed over from the crowd to Mr.
Baddcley, who certainly understood the matter
much better than he did, and said to him—" You
fool !—what are you doing ? That is not the way
to put out a fire. Mr. Baddeley requested him to
step aside, which he did ; but shortly afterwards
he returnedAminguncivil language to the defendant,
taking him by the arm, and turning him round, so
that he very nearly fell. The hose which was in
the defendant's hand was certainly turned so much
round that the water was diverted from the burn-
ing house to the people. • •
The Lord Chief Baron—l suppose it rather put
them out ? (Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant Shee—Just so, my lord. Now, the
question is, was that an assault ?
The Lord Chief Baron—Was what an assault ?
Mr. Sergeant Shee—Taking the defendantby the
shoulder and turning him right round.
The Lord Chief Baron-,—ls that the point re-
served ?

Mr. Sergeant Shee—The learned judge was of
opinion that a man could not commit an assault
on another when there was no hostile intention.
The learned judge thought the plaintiff had received
a hard measure of treatment—not from the defen-
dant, but from the police, who, on zeeing him, de-
cided that he was drunk, refused to send for bail
for him, and kept him all night in a cell in the com-
pany of felons and persons in an inferior position
to his own. There can be no doubt that the plain-
tiff suffered more than he ought. Baron Bram-
well laid it down in the first place, that

in order to support the plea, there must have
been an imposition of hands by the plaintiff
on the defendant with a hostile intention. I think
that was a mistake on the part of the learned
judge, and he seemed to entertain some doubts on
the point himself, for he gave me leave to move.
Mr. Baron Channell—lt may be that the plain-
tiff came in contact with the defendant by mistake.
Would that be an assault ?
Mr. Sergeant Shee—Lord Abinger has laid it
down that everything is an assault if committed
without leave or license.
The Lord Chief Baron—Yes, brother Shee ;
everything which cannot be justified.
Mr. Sergeant Shee—An assault may be com-
mitted with the best motive, but the question is, is
it intentional ? I am sure if the learned baron were
here he would say I should have a rule.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, who had been sitting at
nisi prius, here came into court amidst much
laughter.. His lordship said that the jury had
found that there had been an imposition of hands,
but not with the intention of assaulting the de-
fendant, but of merely drawing his attention.
The Lord Chief Baron—lf you wish to obtain a
man's attention, and gave him a rap on the
shoulder, it is an assault ; and in such a case the
plaintiff might probably recover a farthing damages.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—My doubt was whether
this was an indictable assault.
The Lord Chief Baron—Oh, that is a very diffe-
rent thing.
Mr. Sergeant Shee—Wo are accustomed to re-
gard everything as an asssult.
The Lord Chief Baron—Take your rule.
Rule nisi accordingly..
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. BARRY.-PARCHMENT
AND 'Unit.

This was an information filed by the Attorney-
General against the defendant to recover penalties
for carrying on business as a papermaker at Abbey-
mills, Brompton ; the question being whether the
article manufactured by the defendant was lia•
ble to duty as paper. At the trial, which took
place before Mr. Baron Bramwell, a verdict was en-
tered for the crown, subject to the opinion of this
court whether the material was to be regarded
as paper or parchment, and a rule was subsequently
obtained. It was contended on behalf of the crown
that the article was paper within the act of Parlia-
ment, and as such liable to duty. For the defen-
dant it was urged that it was not paper, because it
was manufactured of animal and not of vegetable
matter ; that its appearance was different from, and
it was applied to different purposes than, paper ;
and, further, that if it were liable to duty at all, it
was only liable to the lesser duty payable upon
parchment.
The invention for which letters patent were
granted to Mr. John Harcourt Brown, of Arthur's
Seat, Aberdeen, was for " Improvements in the
manufacture of artificial skins ;" the object being to
produce artificial skins for the manufacture of parch-
ment, or such like articles, and leather, and consists
in employing the cuttings or other parts of hides
and skins by reducing the same to pulp, and then
by rollers or pressure to produce sheets.
Mr. Wilde And Mr. Bevan, on behalf of the
crown, now showed cause against the rule, which
was supported by Mr. Bovill and Mr. Welsby.
During the arguments several beautiful specimens
of the manufacture applicable to many useful pur-
poses were handed up to the bench, and inspected
by the learned judges with much interest.
The Court reserved judgment.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

EDWARDS V. PAYNE AND REEVE.-SPECIAL JURY

The deceased, Mrs. Alice Corri, the widow of
Domenicho CorH, died at her house, in Barrow-hill-
place, Regent's-park, on the 26th Angust last. She
was 78 years of age, and she left a, will dated the
22d of April, 1858. Her property was worth about
£BOO. She left no next of kin, and the plaintiff, a
carpenter, who lived at 16, St. John's-wood-teraace,
was the person named as her executor in her last
will. The defendant, Mr. Reeve, was the executor
under a former will, and he impeached the docu-
ment before the court on the ground of undue
influence and want of capacity.
Dr. Addams, Q.C., and Mr. Jones appeared for
the plaintiff; Mr. Overend, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins,
Q.C., Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Moore for the defen-
dants.

The deceased in the early part of her life had been
connected with the lyric stage, and had had the sum
of £2OO a year settled upon her by the Duke of
Queensberry, the annuity being secured by a rent
charge upon his grace's estate. - In 1834 she left
her property to her sister ; but in 1847, when her
sister died, she made a new will, by which she di-
vided it amongst the six children and grandchildren
of her husband by a previous marriage. Iu 1857
the executors of the Duke of Queensberry obtained
from the deceased a surrender of her rent charge
for a Government annuity of £2OO and a bonus of
£2OO. The plaintiff made his first acquaintance
with her about 10 years ago, when she sent for him
to execute some repairs at her house. This ac-
quaintance gradually ripened into an intimacy.
The plaintiff transacted various matters of business
for her, and amongst other things conducted the
negotiations on her behalf with th Duke of Queens-
berry's solicitors. On the 4th January last, after
she had received the bonus of £2OO, she expressed