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

V. ROBINSON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a Mil-
ricer, carrying on leueieess 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 be did was
in self defence ; thirdly, that the plaintiff was standing
near the defendant's d welling-house drunk, disorderly,
and riotous, and that he was obliged 'o 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 neeessaryl 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 d-alt with
the defendant. She had for nine years kept company
with the defendant's brother Francis, and on the his ht
of the 25th July she went several errands, and, amongst
others, to the Blue 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 hit n
she saw the defendant ; and as the brother's housekeeper
had bad a child named Frankey, and probably fr-om a
feeling of jealousy, she asked him "If be had been to
see Frankey." On that words arose, and ultimately a
policeman was sent for, and she was given int-.
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 bad
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 the
presence of several policemen, and asked one of them to I
fasten up her drawers. Throughout the night at the
station-house she conducted herself in a violent man-
ner, screaming, Sec., and at eight o'clock the following
morning she bad not recovered from her drunkenne-s,
and asked to he supplied with some gin, which was re-
fused her. She also said at the police-station that she
had bad 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.

Tne Learned Judge having summed up, the jury re-
,urned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 251.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

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

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

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Before Mr. Baron Charmed and a Common Jury.)

ISLI ♦. STEPHENS AND STEEL

This was an action brought for an excessive distress•
It appeared that the plaintiff occupied apartments be.
longing to the defendant Stephens, and having become
indebted in arrears of rent to the extent of 21. 145., upon
which he authorised Sykes to distrain. He did so, and
removed the whole of the furniture, said to be worth
121., and that was the excess complain'd, although the
furniture did Sot realise more than sufficient to defray
the rent and the expenses.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant 3.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fane.)
APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE -IN RE PARRY AND

PARRY.

These bankrupts were described as of Houghton-
street, Clare-market, builders, and to-day was appointed
for choice of assignees, and they were brought up in
cuEtody on their application to be discharged.

Mr. Grover, the detaining creditor, opposed, on the
ground that the bankrupts had, whilst building, done
considerable injury to a house belonging to hire, and he
had brought an action for damages, and the wise was
referred to arbitration, and the arbitrator made an award
for 251., on which a judgment was issued.
His Honour said that the damages am mnted to 3001.,
and where so much was asked and the award so small, it
could not be deomed a vexatious defence, and tnerei4re
the bankrupts were sntitled to their discharge.