The Sun.
London, England, 1821-06-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 9.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY V. ELYNE.
Mr. GURNEY stated, that this was an action brought by the
Noble Marquess to recover from the defendant, an inhabitant of
the'llundred of Ossulstone, a compensation for the damage
done to his house by a riotous assemblage on the evenings of
the Gth and 7th of June last, and the 10th and 11th of Novem-
bcr. The Noble Marquess had not intended to take any notice
of the first outrage, but on its repetition in November, he felt
it a duty tie owed to society to bring the circumstances before a
Jury, that those who committed such outrages against society
might Re they did not injure the individual against whose pro-
perty they directed their attack, but that the loss would ulti-
mately fall on that public, of whom themselves constituted a
pall. He should have nothing to do in this case but to prove
the amount of damage ; that the Noble Lord's house was si-
tuateln the Ilundred. of Ossidstiine, and that the defendant,.
who was wily nominal defendant, was an inhabitant of the
Undred.

The Learned Counsel then called three of his Lordship's
servants, whO proved that Lord Castlereagh's house was si-
tuated in St. James's-square; that on the evenings mentioned
they were alarmed by a mob assembling round the house and
calling for lights; and the call not being complied with, a
shower of stones was sent against the windows, the glass of
which was destroyed, and many of the stones entered the house.
Michael O'Brian, a glaiier, was called, who proved that the
damages done to the windows, which he repaired, in price
amounted to 121. and in November to upwards of 161.
The CiirEr JUSTICE summed up, and stated to the Jury
that the outrage.having been proved, their duty was to ascer-
tain the damage.
One of the Jury inquired if they were bound to give the
value'of plate glass ? -
The CHIEF. JUSTICE replied in the affirmative, plate glass
having been destroyed. '
The Juryman said that was not the rule in the Court of Re-
quests, as regarded shop windows. _ _ .

,
The CHIEF JUSTICE observed, they had nothing; to do with
the deeiSions of, other Courts t here they were bound to decide
according to law, and by law an indiiidual had a rioviit to coin-
peniation to the full value of the property destroyed.
The Jury then found a.Verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages
291.—Costs 40s.

HEMMINGS V. HASLE WOOD.

- - This was an action to -recover from defendant the value of
two • casks of oil, under the following circumstances :—The
plaintiffwas an oilman, and the defendant an ironmonger. On
the day mentioned in the record, the plaintiff'S man was pio-
ceeding 1!), St. John's-street, in a cart, in which were two &asks
of oil, driving slowly, and on his own side of the street; the
-defendant, and another person with him in a second cart, came
driving furiously after him, and although the street was in
this part fourteen feet wide, and the plaintiff's cart did not oc-
vupy more than six feet and a half, the defendant drove furi-
ously. against the plaintiff's cart, caught the stock hoop of the
wheel, and, pulling the cart round,'sthipped the shafts ; the cart
went doWn, and one of the casks rolled out and was staved, and
all the' oil, except about four gallons, was lost. To recover the
value of the oil thus lost the present action was brought.—
Several. witnesses were called to prove that the plaintiff's ser-
vant was driving carefully and slowly, and did every thing in
his power to et out of danger. It was also proved that the cart
was sound and strong, and that'the quantity of oil Imt was GB
gallons, worth X 8 10s. The cask was valued at 10s., and the
repaii.of.-the cart cost £4, milking together £l3, which sum the
plaintiff sought to recover by the present action.
Mr. -CASEERD; for defendant, contended that the accident
occurred -in consequence of the plaintiff's servant having been
,pri the wrong side of the street; and owing to the cart being too
weak and slight to sustain the load placed upon it. The Learn-
Cchinsel` called persons to support this statement. The de-
lenc6;:lloweiet,. failed, and the Jury found a ver!ict for the
plainttftDamages 131. Costs 40s.