The Sun.
London, England, 1826-08-14 00:00:00

the can, there was still a sufficient obligation imposed
upon.the brother. This unfortunate George Smith was
quite helpless for a great number of years ; he had lost
the power of loco-motion; he was locked up an inmate in
this brother's house; he could not have got there without
being conveyed by this brother's family, and under inch
circumstances, the law would surely east a responsibility
upon those Who had possession of the idiot.
Mr. CAMPBELL said he ulna to have interposed this
objection, had not the Learned Judge anticipated, and to
have fortified it by the necessary authorities. There was
the case of " the King v. Ridley;, exactly in point; it was
tried before Mr. Justice Lawrence at Shrewsbury. This
Mrs.' Ridley was charged with unlawfully intending to injure
one Elizabeth William-a, a servant of hers, by exposing her
to severe cold and inclement weather, and not finding her
sufficient foOd and raiment; but because the indictment
did not allege she was a child of tender years, and under
the dominion and controul of Mrs. Ridley, (though tbe,
faet was so), the Learned Judge held it to he invalid.
Now, in the present case, it was alleged, that the defend-
sots had heretofore, to wit, on the Ist of January, 1826,
to the 25th of the tame month, maliciously done so
and so, intending to hurt and injure a certain idiot
under, their care, custody, and controul, and thus did
did make divers assaults, and so forth, upon hiM. It
had' not bean attempted to support these allegations
by proof of such assaults, nor was it shown that the idiot
was, in terms of law, under their controul and custody.—
there was no relationship of parties made out, that constituted
such a responsibility;, they, were not master and servant,
parent and child; the only relationship was that of frit,
ternity, and that kindred of blood could not be drawn in
aid of what must be considered only as a moral, not a
legal, obligation. It would not be sufficient, under such a
charge as this, to charge against a person mere nonlairance
—but there must be clear acts of mallaisanee, and these
done too by parties who had a legal obligation to fulfil.—
If the unfortunate person had been a lunatic, and these
relatives his committee, then a responsibility would arise,
but there was even to his hour no committee appointed
for his custody.
Mr. WDATRLEV and Mr. TALFOURD followed Mr.
CADDSSELL in support of his legal objection.
Mr. TAUNTON, in reply, submitted that in a case of such
extraordinary importance, and where the "objection had
originated with the Court, he really could not conceive
that the learned Jude would think it necessary to inter-
rupt the course of this most serious inquiry at the present
stage' of the proceeding, but would reserve such a point as
this for the deliberate consideration of the courts above.
Speaking most certainly, he saw nothing insuperable in
the point which had been raised. Here the idiot had been
conveyed by the family to this house. The family kept
him there, helpless and incapable of stirring; lie was to all
intents and purposes under their custody and control ; at.
all events, that resolved itself into a question of fact for
the consideration of a jury. As to the legal import of the
terni"" assault," it was not necessary to prove in such as
this, the actual infliction of blows at particular times,—it
was enough to show the generallearing of the ill-treat-
ment. About the meaning of non:faisance and ma!-
faisance, surely his learned friend did not forget the cele-
brated case of the Squires. Charles Squire and Mary his
wife, were indicted for cruelty to an apprentice, by not
giving her sufficient food. All the forms of assault were
used in that indictment ;_ the wife was acquitted, because
of her acting under the supposed influence of her husband,
but the latter Was found guilty of murder, and hanged, for
this Crime.. He was only anxious to discuss the point that
the crime could be as effectually implied, from omiesion;
as from, commission, in eases of cruelty.,

Mr. RUSSELL followed on the same aide, tnd Mr. CAmi).
BELL rejoined.

Mr. Justice BURROUGH was clearly of opinion, that he
could not let the ease go to the jury in the shape in which
it was left by, the prosecutors. The defendants were not
assuredly liable by law upon the statement given in evi-
flenc'e. This idiot was not their prisoner; 'he was not under
restraint except from natural infirmities, 'and his room was
not otherwise a place of confinement. The casebore no resem-
blance in principle to that of starving the apprentice, for there
existed a legal responsibility. No such obligation was
proved to exist here. He suspected at first that the case
would break down upon this point, but ,he hung on an ex-
pectation that. something would arise upon the terms of the
will„ that migit be construed into an obligation.; however,
whet the wappeared, it only disclosed a trust to see
50/. a-year paid for the support of the idiot. Under these
circumstances, how could he tell the jury that there was a
ease, for their consideration, in the absence of all compli-
ance with the requisite legal proofs? If the case could
be put into the form of a special verdict, he should so di-
resit it with all his heart, but that was impossible.
Mr. TAUNTON, with all deference, begged his Lordship
to recollect that it!was in proof that Mi. Smith was the
owner of the house in which these occurrences had taken
place, and a constant resident therein, overlooking all the
domestic arrangements. He called his Lordship's atten-
tion to this, with reference to ulterior proceedings 'else-
where.

Mr. Justice Bunnotinit said he had made a note of that
ownership, but it did not appear that he had any where
personally interfered in these transactions.
An acquittal of the defendants wus then directed by the
Court.

The case lasted from nine o'clock on Saturday until five
o'clock in the evening.
Nine causes still remain to be tried at the civil side,
two of which are of public interest.

SATURDAY, AUG. 12

At the sitting of the Court this morning, Mr. WATSON i
rose for the purpose of defending the dignty of legal pro-
ceedings,. and informed the learned Judge (Mr. Justice
BURROUGH)i that a Mr. Harmer, jun. (no relation what-
ever of Mr. Harmer, of London), had been most grossly
insUlted in the immediate precincts of the Court, late yes-
terday evening. The learned Counsiel yubtnitted that his
Lordship' ought to take cognizance of it.

Mr. Justice BURROUGII suggested, that the most effec-
tual manner of proceeding against the defendants would be
by indictment.

The suggestion of his Lordship was immediately acqui-
esced in.

THE KING V. DAVID NEWMAN, E$Q. JOHN AVERY, ESQ. Gro,

IMMARDS, KSQ. AND WM. VILOVIKAISS, A SOT.
ThiS was an indiCttnent against the defendants, con-
taining counts for conspiracy, riot, and assault, and letting
off iire-works.
The defendant, Newman, alone was found guilty, sub-
ject to the opinion of the Court of King's Bench upon a
special verdict, as follow,:--" Guilty of. letting off fire-
works, but not of the riot."

rested in it WAS an action of
The Assizes here concluded this night it little before
twelve o'clock. The cense which delayed all parties rote:
ejectment,of no public interest.

WELLS,.FiUDAy, AUGUST 11.
CitOWN siDt.
Samuel Gilbert, a robust-looking fellow, aged Is wsis
Charlotte Smith, with intent to
riviischtedherfo.r assaulting

Charlotte Smith, the prosecurris, a young woman of a
'slight, genteel aPPeatranee, described herself to be 23 }wars