The Sun.
London, England, 1817-11-19 00:00:00

BRYANT V BRYANT.

The LORI) CHANCELLOR --" I observe Mr.
Bryant is now in Court, and have no doubt but
he is very anxious'to know my decision. I have
'Tail with the utmost attention the conflicting af-
fidavits. and statements in the case, and I am now
ready to give judgment. Mr. Bryant had there-
fore better be in Court on Thursday morning by
ten o'clock, as I shall then without fail give him
and you all my judgment."
His Lordship rose at one o'clock. •

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 18.

ROBINSON AND OTHERS V. ARMSTRONG AND ANO-

TI-lER.

This was an action of debt against the inhabi-
tants of the Hundred of Easington, in the county.
of Durham, founded upon the statutes of 1 Geo. 1.
c. 5. and 52, Geo. 111. c. 130. to recover the
amount of damage done by the destruction of a
stable, and two stay's, or warehouses .for coals,
the property of the plaintiffs, which were partly
destroyed, or pulled down, by a riotous and tu-
multuous assemblage of keelmen, on the 20th of
March, 1815. At the Summer Assizes for the
County Palatine of Durham in 1815, the Jury
found a verdict for the plaintiffs, subject to the
opinion of this Court upon a case which stated
the following facts :-.—The plaintiffs were colliers
at Newbottle, on the river Wear, in the county
of Durham, and occupied two buildings called
staifs,. as warehouses for the purpose ofdeposit-
ing coals ; and at the time of the transaction in
-question, one of the staifs was filled with about
1000 chablrons of coals, and the other contaiued
four or flirt! chaldrons. These buildings were com-
posed of walls built with stone, with trellis win-
dows, and the roofs were of timber covered with
'tiles. '' On the 20th March, • 1815, the keelmen
on the river Wear rose in a tumultuous body-, and
riotously and Outrageously proceeded to demolish
the stable and other buildings in question. Having
first tore off the tiles,and broke open the doors,they
set fire to the stalls and coals therein, which were
partly consumed. During these violent proceed-
ings two of the. plaintiffs were present for a part
of the time, endeavouring to protect their pro.
"perry, but Mr. Robinson having been wounded
severely, he was compelled to retire for safety,and
the other partner was also compelled to seek
his safety under a threat of personal violence. On
the 25th of March Mr. Robinson, in pursuance of
the 4th section of the 52 Geo. 111. c. 130. was
examined before two Justices, and made oath that
"he did not know the persons who had corny
muted the said outrageous acts, this oath
was made for the purpose of enabling pins to
proceed against the Hundred for the recovery
of the damage done to the premises of himself and.
partner. The case further stated, that the other
partner, who also had been present during part of
.the riotous proceedings of the' keelmen, had not
made the like oath before the said Justices ; and
under these circumstances there were two eMes-
tions raised ; Ist, Whether it was necessary for
'all the plaintiffs, there being three in number, to
'make the like oath which had been taken by No
hinson ? And, 2d, Whether the erections, called •

Staffs, came witl►in tl►e description of buildings
tnentioned in the Act of Parliament, wl►ich the
Hundred would he liable to make good l

Mr. Txtwit- appeared for.the plaintiffs, and en-
deavoured to establish, on the authority of a case
in Carthew's Reports, 145, in which reference
-was also made to Jones's Case, Mich. Term,
1615, and Bird v. the Hundred of Ossulston,
that it was sufficient for one of the partners to
make the oath in question, in order to entitle hint-
self and partners to•maintain the action.
The Court, however, standing upon this !well-
minary objection, were of opinion that it was de-
cisively against the plaintiff's' right to recover,in-
asmuch as according to the true construction of
the 4th section of the Act, all the persons inte-
rested in the result of the action ought to have
taken the Oath, in order to purge themselves of
all suspicion of having participated in ►he out-_
rages, or of having any knowledge of the persons
by whom they had been committed; and there-
fore, without hearing the other side, gave judg-
-1114:11t