The Sun.
London, England, 1810-07-20 00:00:00

that he had done no more than what was absolutely
necessary from the ravages of the mob.
Mr. Wiggins, a surveyor, deposed that. the
charges were proper; be surveyed the work; his
chaige was 61.
The case having been, closed,
Mr. Serjeant SELbON addressed the Jury for- ae
defendants ; they, he observed, had no wish to de-
' tend the action, if it was justified in point of law,
but they. felt it to be their bounden duty to see,
that the parish were legally bound to pay. The
Learned Serjeant did not mean to dispute the law,
nor to find fault with the wholesome provisions of
tlie'act, but-the Jury were to take care that the ael
was not extended, nor made to fall upon persons
innocent. ' There were two points for their consi-
deration ; one, which was the main point, was
whether the anion could be maintained; if it Could,
then the second point, which he did not mean to
dispute, was as to the damages. He certainly knew
with respea to that point, Mr. Mainwaring had
not caused any repairs to be done more than what
was absolutly necessary. With respeet to the law,
it was made to ineuce the Hundreds to protea the
interest of each other, and not to give a multiplicity
of actions in cases of this nature. He contended,
after referring to the words of the 4th and 6th sec-
tions of the. aa, that it did not contemplate, in giv-
ing redress, an injury of the kind now before the
Court, and instanced two cases for breaking %sin-
dows, in which the decisions-of another Court had
been against plaintiaS. In the. present case there
was no proof that. sa brick had, been , removed or

but any part of the building had been demolished,
and therefore ihe Jury, were to pm a liberal con-
struaion upon the act. He would appeal with
confidence to his Lordship aS to the law being with
him ; but in case he should not be of that opinion,
then he would beg his Lordship to reserve 'the point
for a more solemn decision.

Chief Justice, MANSFIELD asked the Counsel for
the plaintiff, what they said to this objection of the
Learned Serjeant, viz. that the attack was not a be-
'ginning to demolish.
Serjeants SHEPHERD and BEST contended' that it
was: With wiped to the cases alluded to, viz.
that of Burrows v. Wright, in Ist East ;and also of
Reed v. Clark; in the. latter, which
..was aalion
of a similar nature, there ,was this difference : the
mob who had broke the plaintiff's 'windows had
done so in consequence' of his not lighting up on
the occasion of Lord St. Vincent's victory—when
the case came for decision Lord Kenyon had been
of opinion, on that occasion, that the assemblage of
persons did not amount to a species of tumultuous,
rioting:, Here the case .was that the mob went
with a determination to commit an injury. As to
the breaking of the windows not being a demolish-
ing or beginning to demolish, why, it was well
known that in' the criminal law, .if a man cut a pane
of glass
_with a felonious intent, it was a burglary.
It could not, therefore, be concluded that the'win-
dow frames which were broke were not a part of
the house; as well might it:he said that the wain-
scot, also damaged, was not part of it.
'Mr. Serjeant BEST submitted that the mob went
for an illegal purpose. into Hanover-square, to de-
stroy Mr., Mainwaring's house; ,that had been
proved by the evidence ; they , therefore came un-
der the meaning of the act, as- felons, which, in
the cases cited by Mr. Serjeant SEWN, was not
the fad, for there the quo anind had not been
proved. •

- Chief Justice MANSFIELD said, tint as it' was a
question of considerable importance, he would di=.
rya the Jury' to find for the plaintiff, with Übe: ty
to the delendatts to enter a non-suit, supposing his
opinion should be' wrong. Addressing the Jury, his
Lordship observed, that the action
,was brought
against the Plundred, under an Ad passed in the'
reign of George I. in- consequence of the disturb.
ance made when the House of Hanover succeeded to
the throne of these realms. It was proved in evidence
that the intention of the mob was to demolish the
windows of Mr. Mainwaring's house, for when the
servant said he would light up, they told him they did
not want that, for they would smash the -windows.
It did not appear that . they were driven away-by
any force, but that -they retired when they effeCted
their purpose. ' The. case therefore. clearly came
within the words of the 4th and 6th section of the
Act, and might be decided instanter, mere it not
that the cases alluded to had been-brought under
discussion.
,His Lordship thought it would be bete
ter, that as it was an important question,,it should
be decided in a solemn manner before all the
Judges.

The Jury found a verdia for the plaintiff, da-
mages 1261. the point being reserved..
Mr. Mainwaring was in Court, andiat between
his Counsel, Serjeants Shepherd and Best.
Counsel for the plaintiff—Mr. Serjeant Shephs.rd,
Mr. Serjeant Best, and Mr. Marryat ; Attornies,
Messrs. Gale and Son.

Counsel for the defendants, Mr. Serjeant Senor)
and Mr. Adolphus; Attorney, Mr. Hussey.