The Sun.
London, England, 1826-05-17 00:00:00

ASSAULT.-FORD V. HUGHES.

Mr. GEORGE opened the pleadings, and Mr. POL-
LOCK stated the case. The plaintiff was a respectable
housekeeper in Field-lane, in the parish of St. Andrew,
Holborn, and the defendant was likewise • a house-
keeper there. The plaintiff, for some time past, has
been separated from his wife, allowing her five shillings
,a week. She has been frequently in the habit of-going
to the • plaintiff's house, and creating disturbances ;
in November, 1825, she caused such a riot, that the
plaintiff felt it necessary to give her in charge- to a
,
watchman.; the watchman took her to St. Andrew's
watch-house in a state of great intoxication, accom-
panied by her husband. The night constable not
being there at the time, the charge was given to the
presiding commander, and the plaintiff went away.
Fhe night constable, who was the defendant, soon
afterwards arrived, and sent for the plaintiff. On the
plaintiff's going again to the watch-house, the defen-
dant inquired into the cause, terms,rike.-of the- sepa-
ration between the husband and wife; hut, not being sa-
tisfied with the explanation, and having high and exalted
Snotions of . the duties between husband and wife, the
defendant ;thought proper to say, lie would discharge
' ,the woman, and detain the plaintiff. He accordingly
opened the door, desired the woman to walk away,
locked the door again, and then desired the plaintiff
to give an account of himself. The plaintiff protested
against being detained, and offered to answer any
questions that might be put to him. After having
been detained for some time, the defendant, a strong
powerful man, took the 'plaintiff, a weakly man,
by the collar, dragged him towards the door,
opened it, and literally threw him out into
the street. For this violent and abusive con-
duct the action, was brought, and the,. object of
it . was, not to obtain excessive damages ; but
tie
_plaintiff felt it a duty to society to bring the ac-
non, .that men, in the situation of the defendant, who
were not always of the best characters, should be
taught, that the public are not to be dealt with as the
deandant had taken, upon himself to treat the plain-
tiff. It' would therefore be for the Jury tq say, what
damages ought to be given.
• 'Sevegil witnesses were called, principallf•wetehmen,
who proved the- facts; as stated by the Learned Counsel.
The LORD CHIZF JUSTICE expressed his opinion
that the imprisonment .was not proved, as the, plaintiff
did not appear to have been detained against his incli-
nation, nor had he expressed a wish to depart. I-Ie
was in a room, in which . it was customary always to
keep the door locked, except when persona. were pass-
ing out or in ; and as to the assault, the Court wished
to know, if more than a shilling could be made of
it on either side.
Mr. POLLOCK thought not.
Mr. A noLPitus for the defendant admitted that
his client ought to have desired the plaintiff to have
walked out before he had put his hands upon him,
which he had not done, and was therefore. liable: to an
action.
The Court directed the Jury not to 'find for the
false imprisoninent, but for the assault. Verdict for
the plaintiff, damages One Shilling, , ;