The Sun.
London, England, 1818-01-16 00:00:00

VICE CHANCELLOR'S C:OURT, .1.1 N• 15.

At about eleven o'clock his Honour, Sir Jour;
LEAcu, the new Vice Chancellor, took Lis seat

for the first time. Having saluted the Bar in the
customary form, he called on the Counsel for any
motions they. might have to make, when
Mr. BEN.Yow stated that there was a motion on
the paper which it had been his intention to make;
but in the abstmce of the Counsel on the other
side, he was desirous to postpone it till to-
morrow..
The VICE CHANCELLOR said, he felt an animus
and earnest desire to spew his respect for the-Gen-
tlemen at the Bar, fur whose accommodation he
should be at all. times ready to sacrifice his own
pet sonal convenience ; but he had a duty to per-
form for suitors and or the public of superior con-
sequence, and front which he must by no means
suffer himself to be diverted. He sat thereto pro-
mote and facilitate the ends .of Justice, and the
course of Justice ought not on trivial grounds
to he impeded. The motions that stood on
the paper for that day must, as far as time would
allow, he made that day, and not be defer red until
to-Morrow, for which the business had been al-
ready .set down.. -He was sure that the rule he
was prescribing Was such as the Gentlemen of the
Bar would themselves approve of, and was one
from which, consistently with his duty, he could
not depart.
Mr. BENYON observed, that he was perfectly
prepared to make his motion ; but that Mr. Agar,
who was engaged on the other side, seas not in
Court.

His Honour having intimated that Mr. Agar
should be sent for, that Gentleman soon afar ap.
peered, and the motion, which was not .one of
touch interest, except to the parties, came on.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. Is.

THE SPA-FIELDS RIOTS.

SPECIAL JURIES.—BKFoRB LORD ELLENBOROUGIC

BECKWJTH V. BRIDGES AND ANOTHER.

An action on the lstGeo: 1. c. 12., commonly

called the Riot Act.

The first count of the de-

claration stated, that on the 2d of December;
1816, ,divers persons, being in number of 12 or
more, unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously,
assembled together in the parish of St. Sepulchre,
and Unlawfully demolished, and began to demo-
lish, the house of the plaintiff. Tl►e second count
set out certain goods, the property of the plain-
t,ff, injured, destroyed, and carried away.
On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. GURNEY
stated, that the present action, as prescribed by
ti,e very wholesome statute on which it was
founded, was brought against two of the respect-
'. able inhabitants of the ward, who would not be
called upon to pay the stun recovered ; it would
be collected by a general rate upon the hundred.
It was unnecessary to enter into a detail of the
particulars of those riots, so disgraceful to the
persons concerned in them, and so injurious to
the property of many individuals in the line of
streets through which the rioters proceeded. The
att.tek commenced (limn the house of the plaintiff.
a gunsmith in Skinner-.street ; for the object of
the infamous disturbers of the public peace was to
arm themselves, so es to he able to intimidate the
peaceable subjects ofsthe King into submission, or
to resist any attack that might be made upon them
by the military. Young Watson, of whom so
much had been heard, and who had unfortunately
escaped justice, first entered the shop of the plain-
tiff, demanding arms ; and on meeting with re-
tnonstrance by Mr. Platt, a customer, he drew a
and shot that
.gentleman : he was secured,
and the mob instantly commenced an attack upon
tl►e house, breaking in the witulows, both wood
and brass wo►k, declaring that they would demo-
lish tl►e I►ouse completely, if their leader was not
restored to them. The damage door to the (loose
an►ouuted 631. Is. 4d. A certain number of

the arms taken away had been restored, but greatly
injured ; and the value Of them, in their deterior-
ated state, .was 3051. 13s. 61. The value of tie
guns, pistols, &c. of which no tidings had since
been obtained, was 911/. 195.; making, in the
whole, 1,281/. las. 10:1., the amount the plaintiff
sought to recover by this action.
liolu►e, the foreman of the plaintiff, paired
many facts already before the public, relative to
die attack upon the plaintiff's shop. Young
Watson came in demanding " Arms, Arms !" and
the mob re-echoed the cry. When be was taken,
some of the rioters exclaimed, " We will pull the

1)--y house down, we will have him out." They
began their attack immediately. This relation
Was confirmed by Mr. Lydiard, who also proved
that several of the crowd threatened to demolish
the house.

J. IL Houghton, J. Hulot, and C. Jones, trades-
men employed in repairing the injury, proved that
their various hills amounted to 641. is. 4d.

Mr. Parker, Mr, Mortimer, and Alf. Nock, three
gunsmiths, deposed that the stint of 3051. 13s. 6th
for guns, 80. damaged, and .9111. 19s. for such as
had been taken away and never returitedi. was'
reasonable.

The ComMON SERJEANT, on behalf of die de-
fendants, confidently argued that the plaintiff had
no pretence for claiming 12811. udder the Riot
Act, which provided On consequence of numerous
disturbances and destructions of Meeting-houses;
&c. at the time it was passed), that the party in,
jured should have his remedy against the.Han-
tired, if the mob either demolished or began to
demolish die dwelling-house of the plaintiff. It
had been decided in many cases, that in order to
support this action, it must arise out of a felony
comm4ted expressly under the Act ; the proceed-
ing of the mob must be directed to the demoli-
tion of the hoi se, and if the rioters had any other
purpose in their attack the action could not be
tnaintained, Here it seemed clear that the design
was to obtain arms in the first instance,andafttr-
wattla to liberate their leader, young Watson
and if they plundered the shop, that was a felony,
but a felony of quite a different kind ; it was a
burglary, and was punishable as a burglary, and
the suffering party could obtain no compensation
front the hundred. For this reason the plaintiff
could not recover for the arms stolen, though he
might, perhaps, for those damaged. In Grisley
v. Higginbotham (1 East. 136), the Court of
King's Bench had held, that a baker suing under
the Riot Act, could not obtain damages for a
quantity of flour which bad been stolen from his
premise* during a riot, in which his premises were
assailed and injured.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII,---.TherC no damage was,

done to the building containing the flour stolen ;
I hat case has no relation .to this—it is not ad idem.
You had better open the book at random, and
quote from it what first presents itself.
Mr. TINDAL (with the COMMON SERGEANT) read
the note of the case, in order to convince his'
Lordship that he was mistaken : it appeared that
considerable damage had been done to the building
to which the warehouse from whence the flour was
stolen was a lean-to ; but it was held by the Court
that the plaintiff could not recover for the flour
stolen, inasmuch a-s that was a distinct felony in-
dependent of star. I. Geo. I.; he could have da-
mages only for that which was destroyed or da-
maged. He further mentioned a case before Mr.
Justice Le 'Blanc at York, where that Judge had
decided, that a party could not recover for furni-
ture stolen from a dwelling-house that had been
begun to be demolished in a riot.
Lord ELLENBoROUGH.—If it were unconnected
with the act of demolishing, I should ceitainly. be
of the same opinion.
The CoraMoa SP.RJEANT further referred to
Reed v. Clarke, (7 T. R. 496.) for the partial
demolition of the house of a Quaker, who would
not illuminate for one of the victories of Lord St.
Vincent.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—I was counsel in the
cause, and I recoli-e,ct that it was held not to be
beginning to demolish, because having the power
In demolish if they chose, the crowd went away
without prosecuting their purpose : they aban-
doned it altogether.
The COMMON SERJEANT added, that in Lord
King v. Chambt•rs, the same point had been de-
termined ; Lord Ellenboroogli then observing,
" the acts of the mob must indicate a purpose to
demolish the house." In the present case, the
purpose was not to demolish the house, but to ob-
tain arms and to liberate their leader.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH referred to the evidence
of Holme and Lydian!, for the declarations of the
rioters, remarking that the question was, whether
dick polo-use was not to pull clown and demolish
the house, had they not been pacified by learning
that young. Watson had made his escape ? They
had a general contemplation of that which came
within the Act. His Lordship added, that he
should rcquest the Jury to divide the damages
for the arms injured, and for those stolen, in or-
der that the Coalition Sergeant might afterwards,
if he thought fit, move the Court upon the point.
Mr. GURNEY submitted, thtit as it was clear
upon the evidence that the arms returned to the
plaintiff were marked in such a way with splinters
of glass, &c., as to show that they had been used
as a means of demolition of the windows, &c.,
the Jury would infer that those not returned (or
stolen, as the Counsel on the other side contend-
ed) had been employed for the same purpose.

•
The COMMON SERGEANT insisted that there
was not sufficient evidence to show even that the
arms returned to the plaintiff had I)eem used in de-
molishing the house of the plaintiff. Ti, at they
had been so used afterwards to other houses would
not bring them within the Act.

Mr. Robert Newrn3n was then called, in order
to show, that the plaintiff had treated the fact of
taking the arms as a substantive felony. For this
purpose lie produced the record of the conviction
of Cashman ; but on cross-examination he said
that the prisoner was prosecuted by the City of
London, not by the plaintiff. Lord Ellenborough
declared, that it the tact were shown to be other-
wise, it would make no difference. ''bough a
mao might have been in:licted for the felony and
convicted, it did not fix the character of the offence
as applied to others. It was not less a felony be-
caose it was accompanied by other and higher
crimes ; in Mrs. Hutchins's case it was not less a
robbery because that robbery was followed up or
perpetrated by murder.
Mr. GUIINEYi in his reply, called upon the
Jury, that the arms lost valued at 9111. were all
taken for the purpose of demolition, although they
might be applied afterwatds to' other purposes.
Lord ELLeNsoßouGit summed up, and observ-
ed, that by the Riot Act, that which before was a
mere trespass at common law, had been erected
into a felony, for the more effectual protection of
private property. Of course the remedy by ac-
tion against the hundred (all the inhabitants
being as it were pledges for the good behaviour of
each other) WEIS given in its stead. 'file primary
object had been to 'obtain arms ; afterwards to
obtain the liheratoion of young Watson; and it seem-
ed undoubted by the witnesses, that had he not
escaped, the mob would have demolished the house.
The arms they used as instruments of destruction
against the building, and they were not taken
away for the mete purpose of obtaining as much
money as they would tell for.
The Jury divided the damages as stated in the
opening of Mr. Gurney ; but they expressed a
clear opinion that the arms were all taken in
prosecution of the purpoSe of demolition. •
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 1,2811. 135.10 d.

BRANDER AND POTTS V. WOOD AND ANOTHER.

An action, precisely similar, brought by the
plaintiflg, who are gunsmiths in the Minories.
They claimed 7521. 10s. I Id. being 621. 2s. sd. for
the repair of the dwelling-house, 341. 1 la. 6d. for
damaged guns, &c. and 6551. 17s. for arms taken
away.

The COMMON SERJEANT again urged his argu-
ment, that the purpose was not demolition, but.
the procuring of arms ; but Lord Ellenborough
was of a contrary opinion, and the Jury concur-
ring with his Lordship, a verdict was found for
the plaintiffs.