The Sun.
London, England, 1819-07-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 21.
Before the Lord Chief Ja4tice and a Special Jury.

THE KING V. LONG,
'This was a Criminal Prosecuting for an assav

on a Revenue Officer.
Mr. Jotaus opened tie pleadings, and Mr. Gott
NEY stated the case. Mr. Smithers, an ex
cise officer, having been informed that the
defendant had some contraband goods on •his
Person followed hint from Mark-lane to
Thames-setter, where he took hold of the breast
of his coat in the roost civil manner, told
him he was a revenue officer, and that he under-
stood he (the defendant) had smuggled goods in
his possession. Long immediately. striick the
officer a violent blow on tie breast, which made
him stagger backwards. The officer then grap-
pled with liiin,.and at last succeeded in throwing
him down. With the assistance of a third person
the defendant was scented, and conveyed to an
adjoining voblic-house„ where he was searched,
and a quantity of Bandana handkerchiefs found
in his pockets.
The above statement was. fully verified by the
evidence of the prosecutor, and that of the per-
son who had assisted in securing Long.
Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Joty on behalf of
the defendant. It was of no consequence in the pre-
sent ease whether the handkerchiefs found on the
person of the defendant were smuggled Or not; the
only question on which the Jnry had to decide was,
whether. the defendant had been guilty of the
assault with which he was charged in the indict-
ment. He contended that the evidence want to
prove that the prosecutor bad been the aggressor,
and that, in this case, the resistance of the de-
fend:ott to a person who, without producing any
warrant, seized hint forcibly in the street, was a
justifiable act of self-defence.
• The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up very briefly.
It did not appear to hint that the Assault which
Long had-committed was justifiable on the ground
of self-defence. !lad any extreme violence b, en
offered to turn in the first instance by Smithery,
he tnight have been justified in defending himself,
but it did nut appear that the conduct of the offi-
cer had been either outrageous or uncivil. .Ver-
diet—Guilty.
• There w-as,no other trial of general interest in
the course of the day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 21.
CPU NGES V. RYLAND AND CO.
Till!' was_ an action to obtain compensation for
damages sustained in consequence of the al-
leged misrepresedtation of the defendants, it was
proved that the defendants, who are merchants
of London, had written to the plaintiff, who is
resident at Dantzic, that credit might be safely
given to the house of Ogilvie and Co,of Mar-
seilles, for any corn which that. Loose might
require adding, that Ogilvie and Co.- were
.about to send a shier to Dantzic for a cargo of that
article. The Ship was accordingly supplied %yids
a cargo, and limber supplies of grain were
afterwards furnished to the same order. But"
Ogilvie and Co. becoming insolvent, this action
Itias bronght on the ground that at the time the
defendants made the representation alluded to,
thuy ete in possession of a letter from Ogilvie
Anil Co. stating, that they were unable to
snake good a payment to the amount of 60001,
Hence it was concluded, on the, part of the phiin-
titi, that the alleiled misrepresentation was liven