The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 13.
THE ICING V. ROBERT YOWLER,.
This was an indictment against one of the officers
of the Court of Requests its Vine-street, Piccadilly,
for an assault upon a lady who was attending that
Court, upon a summons, a short time since.

A verdict of " Not Guilty" was recorded.
JENKINS V. JAMES.

This was an action to recover compensation in
damages for an injury sustained by the plaintiff, in
consequence of the defendant's having maliciously
issued out process of outlawry against her.
The facts of the case, as given in evidence, were
shortly these :—The plaintiff, Charlotte Jenkins,
was possessed, jointly with her three sisters of a
small landed property at Credon-hill, in Hereford-
shire, where, with one of her sisters, she kept a
school. The defendant, an attorney residing at
Credon-hill, had property adjoining that of the plain-
tiff's. Some sheep and pigs of his having strayed
into the plaintiff's garden, and done considerable
damage there, she impounded them. The defendant
brought an action of replevin, and the plaintiff not
having appeared to the proceedings, the defendant
caused the usual writ of capias ad respondendum
to be issued, and got it returned non est invent us,
by the sheriff, though the plaintiff was at the
time residing at Credon-hill, within a few hundred
yards of the defendant's residence. The defendant
afterwards proceeded to obtain judgment of out-
lawry against the plaintiff; and her land, having
under the outlawry become forfeited to the Crown,
he afterwards petitioned the Lords of the Treasury,
and procured a lease of it to be granted to himself.
The judgment of outlawry was subsequently set aside
by the Court of Common Pleas, on the ground of its
having been irregularly obtained under the false re-
turn of non est inventus ; and the defendant had to
pay costs upon that occasion, amounting to upwards
of 24/. It was contended on the part of the plaintiff
that the defendant, in carrying on the proceedings
against the plaintiff, had been influenced by malicious
motives, and a desire to get the plaintiff's land into
his own possession, having purchased of one of the
plaintiff's sisters a fourth part of the entire property,
which had descended to the plaintiff and her sisters
on the death of her mother. He had repeatedly ap-
plied to the plaintiff to sell him her share, which she
had refused to do. It was stated by one of the
witnesses, that the defendant's sheep and pigs
had frequently trespassed upon the plaintiff's land,
and that, upon the plaintiff's causing them to
he impounded, he had violently assaulted her.
The principal point in the case, however, was, that
respecting the false return to the writ of
capias ad respondendum. It was urged on the part
of the plaintiff, that the defendant had procured
that return to be made from malicious motives, in
order to obtain the outlawry without letting the
plaintiff have notice of the proceedings ; and it was
stated by Mr. Harris, the Under-Sheriff of Here-
fordshire, who was examined as a witness, that lie
had refused to make the return in the first instance,
conceiving he was not authorised to do so, but he
afterwards received a written authority from the
defendant to make the return. The plaintiff's wit-
nesses were cross-examined by Sir J. Scarlett for
the purpose of showing that the defendant had made
offers of reference to the' plaintiff, and had dis-
claimed any intention of actiag harshly towards her.
The witnesses, however, negatived the whole of
the facts which were attempted to be proved on
these points, and one of them stated that the de-
fendant had repeatedly declared, with an oath,—
" that he would do what he liked, and have what
he liked."

Sir J. SCARLET; in addressing the Jury on the
part of the defendant, denied that his client had
been actuated by malicious motives ; every step he
had taken in the proceedings was that of forbear-
ance, and not oppression towards the plaintiff. He
had made repeated offers to the plaintiff to refer all
matters in difference between them to any person
whom ihe might name ; but all his offers had been
disdainfully rejected, and he had been obliged to
have recourse to the measures he had adopted, for
the purpose of asserting his rights, and protecting
himself in the enjoyment of his property.
Lord TENTERDEN, in summing up the case, ob-
served that the main question to determine was,
whether the defendant, in procuring the false re-
turn of non est inventus to be made, had done so
designedly with a view to injure the plaintiff, or
through mistake, conceiving it to be the proper
course of proceeding.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1501.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 13.
ROLFE V. STANLEY'.

Mr. Sergeant CROSS (with whom was also Mr.
Sergeant JONES) stated, that the plaintiff was a
young man, slightly made, but of a sound constitu-
tion, of about 25 years of age, and had for some
time carried on the business of a draper, in partner-
ship with his father, in Dean-street, Soho. On the
2d of December in the year before last, he was
thrown from his horse, and falling on his right knee
on a loose gravel road, his knee was much lacerated
and bruised, and, as it afterwards appeared, some
pieces of the gravel penetrated the flesh, and were
forced into the knee. He was attended on the spot
by an apothecary, who having dressed his wounds
conveyed him home, when Mr. Stanley was called
in, and on examining the knee pronounced it as his
opinion that the knee-pan was broken. During this
time the plaintiff was suffering the most excruciating
pain from the moveable substance within the
knee, which the defendant considered to be a frag-
ment of the bone. Under this mistaken idea, he
directed two splints to be placed under the thigh, in
order to approximate that which he considered to be
bone with the joint, and by that means to cause
them to unite. Mr. Stanley continued this treat-
ment for some time, notwithstanding the dreadful
agony which it caused the plaintiff, until at length
the flesh healed, and the stone was enclosed. When
this was effected, the patient felt some mitigation of
the pain which lie had previously endured, and the
'defendant took his leave of him, assuring him that
he had nothing more to do than to keep himself
quiet, and to give the limb as much rest as possible.
The plaintiff did accordingly abstain from any kind
of business; but, contrary to his expectations,
instead of mending, he found his health and lame-
ness become daily much worse, and he continued to
linger in great pain until the September following,
when another medical adviser was called in by
the advice of Mr. Jauet, the apothecary, who had
constantly attended him. When this gentleman,
whose name was Lilly, was first called in, he
found that a corroded ulcer had formed itself, from
whence proceeded a very considerable discharge, and
the health of the plaintiff was so considerably affected,
that in the first instance he applied himself to effect
a better state of body; and having administeied
soothing medicines for some time, he directed his at-
tention more particularly to the knee, and at that
time he discovered that a portion of the flint began
to protrude through the skin, open which lie opened
the wound, and extracted the pieces of stone which
would he produced, and were of a very considerable
size. Immediately after this operation, which took
place in November last, the plaintiff began speedily
to recover, and although still lame, the Learned
Sergeant had much satisfaction in stating that every
hope was now entertained of his eventual recovery ;
and it was confidently anticipated that Mr. Lilly
would be enabled to effect that which it was con-
ceived the defendant would and could have done if
he had been more vigilant in examining
into the
cause of the injury.
Having stated this outline of
the case, the Learned Sergeant left it confidently in
the hands of the Jury, not doubting that they would
make the plaintiff such a reparation as they thought
the nature of the injury demanded.
After the plaintiff's case had been gone into,
evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendant;
among others, Sir A. Cooper, Mr. Brodie, and Mr.
1 Abernethy, bore testimony to his skill and general
surgical knowledge; after which the Jury having
retired for an hour, returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages 30/.