The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING FEBRUARY 10, 1868.

88-ARE LlST.—This Day.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This ray.

LORD JUSTICES' COURT.
THE NEW LORD JUSTICE.
Sir C. J. Selwyn, the successor of Sir J. Rolt,
took his seat on the bench this morning in the pre-
sence of a very crowded bar. The learned judge
was received by the whole assembly with the utmost
respect.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Special
Jury.)
IZOD V. MORGAN.

This was an action for damages for an assault.
Mr. Sergeant Parry appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Coleridge for the defendant.
Tho plaintiff said he was a medical man,
and in the year 1863 he was called in to
attend the defendant. After his recovery a bill
for £2 10s. was sent, and this, he believed, was the
occasion that eventually led to the assault. The
bill, he believed, was sent to the plaintiff at the
Prince of Wales'favern instead of his private house,
but of this he could not be quite sure. In about
eight months after that, the debt not being dis-
charged, he met the defendant and told him
of the matter, Defendant seemed highly
offended, but the money was sent in
the evening. Some time after that he (plain-
tiff) was shooting in company with a friend,
when a wounded bird fell in the field belonging to
the defendant. He went into the field without his
gun to find the bird, when the defendant came up,
and, in the moat offensive manner, threatened, if he
did not go off the land, that he would kick him.
He, however, left, but on the next occasion that he
met defendant it was at the Esher station, when
he behaved in a most outrageous manner. lie told
the plaintiff that he had turned up his nose indig-
nantly at him (defendant), and that he would knock
him down. He (plaintiff) might have called de-
fendant after that a bloated fellow. Defendant
continued to abuse and attempted to strike him
(plaintiff) with his whip, but he stepped aside ;
but, notwithstanding that he avoided the blow, he
fell, and was greatly injured. He attempted to
strike in return, but did not succeed. Defendant
then struck him a violent blow on the shoulder, and
told him (plaintiff) he would repeat the operation
when he next met him. He told him he was quite
capable of doing that, as he (plaintiff) believed he
was well acquainted with prize-fighters. The de-
fendant was held to bail by the Windsor magis-
trates for the assault. The defendant, on the occa-
sions he had referred to, had acted in the most violent
manner towards him, and he (plaintiff) denied
ever doing anything by word or deed unbecoming
a gentleman.

Cross-examined by Mr. Coleridge—He thought
he was correct in stating the defendant was a horse-
dealer. When defendant spoke to him at the Esher
station, defendant did not address him with a scowl,
but he looked pleased, as if he had said something
witty. He was sure the defendant did not say when
he (plaintiff) went into the field that he was sur-
prised to see him, as he had not heard the re-
port of a gun. He did not make any other
reply than he had spoken of. He did not by ges-
ture refuse to leave Mr. Morgan's field. He did
not go, when he (defendant) told him he would hit
him ; of course not, he thought Mr. Jupp would
interfere, as he was the mutual friend of both.
On the 26th be positively denied that he
did anything to induce the outrage that had
been committed upon him. He might have
used the term ic pot-bellied" or bloated, but he
would not say which. He did not recollect hear-
" You would be glad of some
ing the defendant reply
of my potbelly, you herring gutted fellow." He
did not square up to Morgan before ho struck the
plaintiff. He felt quite certain he should not have
fallen down had it not been for the conduct of
Morgan. He was bruised by the fall, and although
it did not show itself he thought it quite correct to
term the bruise an inward one. He admitted call-
ing Morgan a low bully, but it was not until after
he (plaintiff) had been struck by him.
This was the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Coleridge said there were always two sides
to a question, and he thought it was remarkably
strange that the plaintiff had not called Mr. Jupp
to corroborate his statement. The defendant was
not, as had been stated, a horsedealer, and he (Mr.
Coleridge) believed it would be found that the
whole of the matter which led to this action arose
out of an act which the plaintiff had himself
committed. In the year 1863 Mr. Morgan was taken
unwell, and Mr. Izod was called to attend him. After
his recovery, Mr. Izod, instead of sending in his bill
to Mr. Morgan at his private house, sent it to a
tavern, which the defendant thought highly objec-
tionable, and on his next meeting with that gentle-
man led to some conversation. After that matters
went on until the occurrence took place which led
to the present action. He would oall the defendant,
from whom the jury woull hear another version of
the affair as given by the plaintiff.
Mr. Morgan, the defendant, stated that he re-
sided near Esher, and in the year 1863 he returned
from India, and being unwell he sent to Mr. Izod,
and a debt of £2 10s.
was incurred, but he never
received a bill, and the first intimation he had that
such was sent in was on the occasion of his meeting
with the plaintiff about eight months after, when
he (the plaintiff) told him that he ,had sent in
his bill, and that he did not care about
such trifling amounts remaining on his book.
He asked him where he had sent the bill to, and ho
told him the Prince of Wales Tavern. He (de-
fendant) told him he regretted that such had been
done, but that he would, as he had demanded the
money in an offensive manner, send it him that
evening, which ho did. On one occasion that he
met the plaintiff, it was true, he was driving a high
spirited horse, but that he never did anything to
drive plaintiff into a ditch; and with respect to some
of the other statements of the plaintiff, they were pure
inventions. With respect to the matter about the
bird, the facts were that he had some high grass in
a field were partridges were in the habit of laying,
and his attention was directed to Mr. Izod, who he
saw working about the grass with a pointer. He
went up to Izod and asked what he was doing,
when he said
ju a very offensive manner
that he (plaintiff)
was lookng for a wounded
bird. He told him he was a trespasser, and
having expressed his aversion to the plaintiff
personally he told him to leave his land. He ap-
peared disinclined to do so, when Mr. Jupp came
up, and then he (defendant) told him he had a great
objection to Mr. Izod. The defendant then told
plaintiff that if he did not leave the field he would
kick him out, after which he went. Towards
the end of the year he Was standing at
the Esher Station when Mr. Izod drove up,
and having left his chaise he deliberately walked
up to him (defendant) and made a most offensive
face. He looked straight in his face and turned
up his nose in a most objectionable manner. He
(defendant) took no notice of that, but when he
met Izod again he repeated the conduct, and then
he (defendant) said " What are you making
those faces for ? you are already ugly enough."
Plaintiff used a very vulgar expression, and
said he should do it as often as he pleased. He
denied ever squaring up to plaintiff, but he told
him that if he attempted to strike him he would
knock him down. The plaintiff replied, " I have
no doubt you would, you pot-bellied, bloated,
brute 1" The defendant replied, " Pot-bellied and
bloated I may be, but I have no doubt you, you
herring-gutted wretch, would be glad of some of my
fat." (Laughter.)

Mr. Coleridge—These compliments passed before
the conversation about plaintiff's nose. (Laughter.)
plaintiff himself was the Defendant—No, th©
aggressor on the occasion, and he told Izod that if
he did not go away he would give him the soundest
thrashing he had ever had in his life. All the
plaintiff had stated as to his having used foul
language was untrue, and the other statements he
had made were pure inventions.
Cross-examined by Sergeant Parry —lle denied
being a horse dealer. Ile drove two teams, but
being desirous of getting rid of some of those horses
he advertised them for sale instead of sending them
to Tattersall's. lie never bought horses for re-sale.
lie bad, however, put several adyertimement4 into

the newspapers, but they all related to the horses he
had just spoken of. He had been summoned before
the Windsor magistrates for an assault, but he was
not the aggressor. It was the pikeman who was
iu fault. The magistrates, however, fined him
(defendant) about £7 for the offence.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff. Da-
mages, £2O.

MISS ADAII ISAACS MENKEN. -In the Court of Com-
mon Pleas, before the Lord Chief Justice Bovill and a
special jury, Mr. Murphy made an application in the case
of Menken v. Smith. The learned counsel said that the
plaintiff was Miss Menken, the equestrian actress,
and she sued to recover damages for an alleged
breach of a contract to employ her at Astley's
Theatre. The present application, made on behalf of
the defendant, was that the trial should be postponed upon
the ground that Mr. Myher, who was a material witness
for the defence, was in Paris, ill of the smallpox, and
of course could not be for some time brought to
London.—Mr. Joyce, for the plaintiff, said that the
defendant had already delayed the trial by sum-
moning a special jury, and said if any long delay
took place it would be a very serious matter for the
plaintiff, because she expected to have to go to California
in a month's time.—The Lord Chief Justice said that the
defendant could not be forced to go to trial in the
absence of a necessary witness, but, in granting the appli-
cation, he should direct that the venue should be changed
to some place on the Home Circuit, so that the plaintiff
could try before she had occasion to leave the country.—
Application granted, and the venue changed to Essex.
DARING BURGLARY.—WiIIiam Hart and Henry Tindall
were brought up at the Southwark Police-court for final
examination, charged with burglariously breaking
into the premises of Thomas P. Ackerman, draper,
New-cut, and stealing therefrom several pieces of
printed calico, a large quantity of red woollen, and
other property, worth about £5O. Police-constable
Phelan said that he was on duty in the New Cut
near one o'clock onlTuesda.y morning, when he saw Tindall
come running with another man from the direction of pro-
secutor's premises, carrying a bundle. Witness pursued
him up Windmill-street, when he threw the bundle away.
Witness called the attention of Police-constable Chanter,
who pursued him and took him to the station-house.
He then returned to the prosecutor's premises,
and found that they had been broken open,
and on rousing Mr. Ackerman up he identified
the bundle as some of his property.—Police-constable
Chanter said that on Tuesday afternoon, from information
received, he proceeded to 21, Windmill-row, New-cut, and
saw a female who lived with the prisoner Hart. He
searched about, and found in a back room a large hamper
containing red flannel, several pieces of print, and some
linen, all of which the prosecutor iluntified.—Mr. Acker
man having proved that the things stolen belonged tc
him, the prisoners were committed fur trial.
ASSA7LT UPON THE POLICE.—At Guildhall, a labourer
named John Hawkins, was placed at the bar, before
Alderman Salomons, M.P., on a charge of having assaultee
taopd oyl if coerofficer
unwhilst
ei
s ss.
The
n il
ethe
as
saacutl
to
was
a s taking
ofas,
rhoism
s intocharacter
u c s
and the prisoner was sentenced to seven days' imprison
ment with hard labour.