The Sun.
London, England, 1842-09-24 00:00:00

THAMES-POLICE.

Yesterday William Henry Stokes, Thomas Brom-
ley, and Thomas Turnbull, appeared before Mr. Bal-
lantine, charged with obstrulting and assaulting Mr.
Robert Garrett, the London Dock-master, in the exe-
cution of his duty, and blockading the entrance lock.
at Wapping, in such a manner, that the egress of
vessels and craft was for some time prevented, and
great confusion prevailed.
Mr. Humphreys, the solicitor, prosecuted on the
part of the London Dock Company, and said the de-
fendants were all lightermen. He read several
clauses in the Dock Act giving authority to the Dock-
master to regulate the admission and departure, as
well as the mooring and unmooring, removal and
stations, of all vessels and craft.
Mr. Robert Garrett, the Docic•master, stated that
' on the evening of the 13th, about eight o'clock, and
an hour before high water, the whole width of the
lock at the entrance next the river was blockaded by
the defendants' barges, and nothing could pass either
in or out of the lock, and there were several barges
at the time in the lock ready to come out, and the
dock basin at the north end of the lock was quite full
of vessels and craft. He ordered the defendants to
shove astern, and make room for the craft to come
out, which they refused to do, and held on by the
pier-head with their long staves, or boat-hooks, each
endeavouring to get before the others. He unhooked
their hitchers, but as fast as he did so they were
hooked on again, and the defendants attempted to
bring their craft in, although it was impossible for
them to pass through. He then sent down a man
named Adams to shove the barges astern, but finding
lie was not attended to, he went down into the lock
'himself, and got upon the defendant's barges and
removed their boat-hooks, but they immediately
hooked on again to the corner of the pier-head, and as
often as he removed them the boat-hooks were made
fast again. One of the prisoners said, "We will
heave the - overboard, he has no business in our
craft," and they hustled and shouldered him in a most
violent manner. Stokes eventually took up a broom-
stick, and with both hands made a blow at his head,
which he parried, and caught the blow with his hands,
and while he was struggling to get the broomstick
from him, Stokes struck him a violent blow on the face
with his fist. He afterwards obtained the assistance
of the.lockman and the river police, and their barges
were removed, the craft in the lock passed out into
the river, and after some time the business was pro-
ceeded with.

Mr. BALLANTINE fined the defendant Stokes 3/
and the other defendants 40s. each.

At the intercession of Mr. Humphreys, who said
the object of the Dock Company was answered by a
cofwiction, the Magistrate reduced the penalty on
Stokes to 205., and upon the others to 10s. each, for
which they expressed thanks.
Joseph Hales, a waterman and lighterman, was
fined 205., for illegally navigating three barges to-
gether, and taking others in tow on the river.

SURREY SESSIONS.

ASHWORTH AND OTHERS v. THE EARL OF UXBRIDGE.
Yesterday Mr. Abbott, the Under-Sheriff for the
County of Surrey, sat at the Sessions-house, Newing-
ttin-causeway, for the purpose of trying seven actions
against the Earl of Uxbridge, for the recovery of
sums payable under annuity deeds for annuities to the
several plaintiffs.
The following is a list of the names of the plaintiffs
and of the amounts claimed :—The Rev. Peter Ash-
worth (as executor of Thomas Ashworth) v. the Earl
of Uxbridge, 961.12s.—Same v. Same, 661.—Love-
kin v. Same, 1331.—Foster v. Same, 60/.—Cooper v.
Same, 2391.—Cousins v. Same, 132/.—Swindall v.
Same, 661.
Each of the above sums was the amount of one
year's annuity. It was agreed that the verdict in the
first case should decide the others, the question in-
volved being the same.
Mr. James, barrister, appeared for the plaintiffs ;
and Mr. Chambers for the defendant.
The Jury having been sworn the first case was taken.
Mr. JAMES said, that it was with reluctance the
plaintiff had been compelled to proceed against the
.Noble Earl, but he bad hitherto been unable to obtain
from him payment of the amount due on the annuity.
In sume_cf the other cases the plaintiffs were persons
in a humble station of life, who had advanced these
sums to the Earl of Uxbridge, but were now unable
to obtain payment. The annuity in the case now be-
fore the Court amounted to the sum of 96/. 125., the
consideration for which was the payMent of a sum of
6901. As, however, the moaey had not been paid,
the several plaintiff's had been compelled to take their
present course, though they did not know whether
the verdict of the Jury, would produce any fruits to
been called to the Upper House as
Peer—having
or not, as the defendant, by his position as a
Baron Paget—was protected from the consequences
of such verdict, as far as his personal liberty was con-
cerned. The Earl was heir to the Marquisate of An-
of his father—a somewhat unusual
course, glesea, but had been called to the Upper House during
theo f
might leave a doubt upon the minds
me
of the Jury whether the defendant had been so
clei,eti which
raised to the peerage, in order that, as a legislator,
he might benefit his country, or that he might
himself enjoy the privilege of freedom from
arrest. The plaintiffs feared that he had very
little property, for, perhaps, when a Noble-
man chose to exhibit himself to the gaze of the
public, not in his own equipages, but in everything
hired, it was reasonable to infer that those who had
claims upon him would have very little chance of ob-
taining the amounts due to them. But they had,
notwithstanding, brought their actions, and the plain-
tiff in the present case had subpoenaed the Marquis of
Anglesey, whom he (Mr. James) proposed to exa-
mine as to the means of his son, the defendant. With
regard to the claim of the plaintiff, lie should have no
difficulty in establishing it, nor would the Jury at
all hesitate as to the amount of damages they would
award.
The deed of annuity, dated the Bth of August,
1838, by which an annual sum of 961. 12s. was granted
to Thomas Ashworth, in consideration of the pay-
ment of the sum of 6901., was then put in.
Mr. Thomas French, clerk to Mr. Columbine, the
plaintiff's attorney, stated that up to the date of the
commencement of the action there were four quarters'
annuity due. The interest upon the unpaid annuity,
calculated from the expiration of each quarter to the
date of the commencement of the action, amounted
to 3/. 11s. 9d. The plaintiff could have entered up
judgment for the amount of the annuity unpaid, but
not for the interest accruing upon that sum.
Mr. JAMES then called the Marquis of Anglesey,
who came into Court, and was sworn. He was ac-
commodated with a seat on the bench.
Mr. JAMES—I believe, my Lord, you are the father
of the Earl of Uxbridge. Th.3Marquis—l believe so.
Has he any house or establishment now ?—He has
quitted a house he had in Bruton-street, and I am
told lie has taken a house in Hertfordshire. What his
establishment is I have not the slightest knowledge.
Now, can you tell me, my Lord—excuse me for
putting the question—what property he has ?
Mr. CHAMBERS interposed, and objected to the
question. The examination was not proceeded with.
The Marquis of Anglesey then left the Court.
Mr. CHAMBERS,
for the defence, said the question
in this case was merely one of amount—whether the
plaintiff in this action, and therefore in the other six,
should recover the actual amount of annuity overdue,
or whether he should charge interest upon that amount
as compensation for the delay in the payment. A
Jurya
. wereoa e empowered in such cases to say what the
c
of
damagesf
should be. Now, there were two
w ulating the interest, if interest were to be
awarded at all
amount;
one was to calculate it upon the whole
year's annuity, from May, 1842, when it became due,
and the other was to calculate it from the expiration
of every quarter. The plaintiff had chosen the latter
mode. It would
for the Jury to say which mode
they considered most fair between the parties. With
regard to the question of damages, it did appear to
him that this was not a case in which interest ought to
be charged upon the unpaid annuity. It was a clear
bargain between the parties, the rate of interest being
very high. For the sum of 6901., the Earl of Ux•
bridge, then hein_
g 40 years of age, agreed to pay
during his life the sum of 961. Here was an interest
of 13 per cent., from which, however, the insurance
money had to be deducted ; that would still leave
9 per cent. as the interest of the transaction. Now,
he did think the Jury would see that where so high
an interest was charged, the case. was not one of that
sort in which additional in teresfought to be demanded
on arrears of annuity.
The UNDEa-5ii,,,,,, having left the question of
amount to the Jury-,
they immediately returned a
verdict for 1001. 3s. 9d. ; 961. 12s. being the amount
claimed, and 31. 1 is. 9d. interest upon it.
Mr. JAMES here observed, that the annuitants had
a clear right to interest. They only had the security
of the Earl, which experience showed to be worth
nothing. He did not think that there ' was any one
now in the box who would lend the Earl money on
the same terms.--(A laugh.) - -.-
Verdicts were then taken in the other six cases for
the amount demanded, and interest upon it, calcu-
lated in the same w ay.