The Sun.
London, England, 1821-08-06 00:00:00

HERTFORD ASSIZES, AUGUST 3.

MORRIS V. GAUSSEN, CLERK.
This was an action against the Rev. Armitage
Gaussen, Rector of the parish of Meesden, near
Buntingfprd, a magistrate of the county, for
causing the plaintiff, a respectable farmer at
Anstey, to be apprehended without any reasonable
or probable cause, and conveyed in iron manacles
and handcuffs to the defendant's house, and for
unlawfully imprisoning him for the space of four
hours. The defendant pleaded the general issue
—Not Guilty. This case excited general interest.
Mr. MAR►;YAT stated the plaintiff's case as
one of great hardship and oppression. On the
Bth of May last the plaintiff and some of his
friends, respectable and wealthy farmers, had
been amusing themselves in shooting young rooks
at his farm. It was agreed that the next day
they should meet at the Bell public house, in
the village of Austey, to divide the fruits of
their sport. They were perfectly orderly in their
conduct, and were quite sober. About three
o'clock in the afternoon the defendant came to
the public-house, and ordered the landlord not
to draw any more beer. This was a matter
about which the plaintiff was perfectly indifferent.
The defendant then sent for a constable, and
charged the plaintiff -in custody, and ordered
handcuffs to be put upon him. The .constable
not being very expert at the business, the de-
fendant took the handcuffs and put them on the
plaintiff hiMself ; and, being fastened to a person
named Wheeler, was, in that state, dragged to the
defendant's rectory atMeesden,about twomilesdis-
tant. At this timethe plaintiff was utterly ignorant
of the offence for which he was so treated. He was,
however, sent to the rectory, and there confined
until the defendant's arrival, about two hours
afterwards. The defendant had taken the key
of the handcuffs with him, and in the meantime
wen. about the neighbourhood boasting that he
had got the plaintiff in handcuffs. In this igno-
' minions state the plaintiff was kept an hcrur at
the defendant's house, before he could, be freed.
His wrists being swollen with pain; arising from
the handcuffs being too small, he asked for a
little oil at the rectory, but the servants refused
to let him have any, saying, that it was as much
as their places were worth to comply. When
the defendant arrived he ordered the handcuffs
to be taken off; and then, without any inquiry,
or information on oath, he ordered the plaintiff
to pay a fine of 55., and to find two sureties to be
of good behaviour ; and in default thereof,
threatened to send him to the county gaol: The
plaintiff; conscious of his innocence, indignantly
refused to pay the money or find the securi-

lies, until he knew what. offence he had coril-
mitted. The defendant, however; declined in-
forming him with what he was charged, and
at length, after four hours confinement, and
after consulting the constable (who seemed to
be a better lawyer than the Magistrate himself)
what he ought to do, he consented to discharge
the plaintiff. This was a mere outline of the
case. The plaintiff was even yet ignorant of the
supposed offence for which he had been so un-
justly and tyrannically treated. The Learned
Counsel supposed it would be said that the plain-
tiff had been tippling ; but even admitting he had,
what law could justify such an iniquitous abuse
of Magisterial authority ? But- the fact was not
so-1---the plaintiff was perfectly sober. He bad
been taken up without a warrant, condemned
without a"hearing, and ignominiously punished
for no crime. Under such circumstances, it was
for the Jury to say what damages a respectable
farmer so treated was entitled to receive at the
hands even of a Special Jury, composed of some of
the Magistracy of the county. In the outset of the
case he should not apply those epithets to the
defendant's conduct which the circumstances of
the case would seem to warrant ; but he would
venture to say, that never was there more igno-
rance or cruelty evinced by a Magistrate in these
dominions, in the administration of the King's
commission, under the colour of authority.
Several witnesses were then examined in sup-
port of the statement made by the Learned
Counsel ; after which,
Mr. WALFORD addressed the jury on behalf of
the defendant, and opened a case of justification,
on the ground,—first, that the plaintiff was a
tippler; and second, that he had been guilty of
such contemptuous demeanour towards the de-
fendant in the discharge of his magisterial duties,
as would warrant him in the conduct he had pur-
sued. He referred to Burn's Justice, Hawkins'
Pleas of the Crown, and Blackstone's Commen-
taries, in support of the latter proposition.
Evidt nee was then adduced for the defendant,
and

Mr. MARRYAT made an able reply.
Mr. Baron WOOD then charged the Jury, that
the defendant had certainly outstepped the limits
of his authority. First, there was no pretence
for handcuffing the plaintiff: second, he had no
authority for punishing the plaintiff in the way
complained of as a tippler; for supposing it to be
proved that the plaintiff was a tippler, he could
only have fined him 3s. 4d.; and, in default of
paying that fine, he could but have set him in the
stocks for four hours. Probably the excess of
authority arose merely from ignorance, and with-
out any malicious motives. The plaintiff, how-
ever, was entitled to some damages for the injury
he had sustained.

The Jury, which was composed of four
esquires, and eight talesmen, after deliberating
for about ten minutes, found their verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages SOL

HERTFORD, Auc. 4.

The Assizes for this county concluded this day
about one o'clock. On the crown side, which
finished on Friday evening, there were seven ca-
pital convictions, but none of the cases were
distinguished by any enormity.

C
Before the Hon. BarIVIL SIDE.
on WOOD and Special Juries.
TIMSON AND MARREATT V. BALDERO.
This wasan action of replevin, brought by the
assignees of Mr. Charles Boldero, to recover cer-
tain goods and chattels taken under a distress
by the defendant in the family seat at Asperton
in this county. The defendant pleaded as an
avowry that the late father of the defendant and
the bank being seized in fee of Asperton, had
granted to the defendant by deed an annuity of
1001. -payable out of that property., with the
power of entering and distraining in the event of
non-payment. The avowry then alleged that
certain arrears of the annuity became due, and
for those arrears the defendant distrained. The
plaintiff replied, first, that there was no such
deed ; second, that there were no such arrears due ;
and, third, that the defendant had released the
annuity. This was the second trial of the same
cause. Several important questions were involved
in the discussion, but it was now agreed on both
sides to withdraw a juror . upon terms mutually
assented to.