Star.
London, England, 1825-05-20 00:00:00

LAW REPORi:

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 19.
ASSAULT..-BEVAN V. MARTIN.

Mr. Bevan brought this action against Mr. Martin
for an assault and battery. The plain iff is the keeper
of a boarding school, and churchwarden for the parish
of Hendon. The defendant is a farmer in the same
parish. In the month of November last the plaintiff,
sent for the defendant to pay his church-rate ; a quarrel
en'ued, and out of it grew the assault complained of.
On the part of the plaintiff, two of his servants were
called, who proved that on the occasion in question,
Mr. Martin, when he came up to Mr. Bevan, asked,'
14 Who made you church warden ?—where you pay a
shilling, I pay a pound; I'll shake you to watch-rib-
bons before I have done with you ;" that he then took
the plaintiff by the collar, and shook him, to which the
plaintiff replied, instead of a blow, by a remonstrance—
•l Is this the way you pay the church rates?" Mr.
Martin then gave Mr. Bevan a slap on one cheek, and
eke a slap on the other, saying at the same time,
44 You are a d—d pretty fellow for a churchwarden!"
Mr. Martin ultimately knocked the plaintiff down, and
his head was considerably bruised in the fall.

Mr. SCARLETT, in repli, commented on the impro-
bability of the story which had been told by the plain-
tiff's witnesses, and espeCially on the inactivity of his
servants while the defendant was inflicting this assault.
The Lout) Cuter Juseicz briefly summed up.
Verdict fur the plaintiff—damages, £25.
CONSPIRACY.—THE KING V. HOLLINBERY.

Mr. BRODRICK opened the pleadings, which stated,
that this was an action brought by Mr. Josiah Taylor,
against persons of the name of Hollinbery, Bowley, and
Smith, for conspiracy to extort money from him, under
the threat of prosecution for keeping a gambling-house.
Mr. SCAnLe7 r premised his opening, by stating, that
no one could feel a stronger abhorrence of tl.e prac-
tices of gamblirig-Itooses than himself; but that there
was, for this reason, no class of persons who were so
much exposed to become the subjects of private pecu•
lotion and corrupt gain. The very severe penalties of
the law in case of their conviction, combined with the
general hatred of gambling-houses, tended to induce
these keepers to come to any compromise wi.h persons
vho might threaten to prosecute them. The persons
whose names appeared in the present conspiracy had
carried on their netariois traffic to a great extent, be-
fore they had directed their attacks to Mr. Taylor, and
at the period when they began their operations on him,
Mr. Taylor had actually converted his gambling-house,
in Albemarle-street, into a picture-shop.
While Mr. Scarlett was stating his case, all the wit-
nesses in this cause were ordered to withdraw from the
Court, and remain on the outside till called on. Having
closed his opening case, the several indictments prefer.
red against Mr. Taylor wete put in and read.
Charles Molloy IVestrnacott, in the year 1822, was
Editor of the Gazelle of Fr:Aldan ; about this period
saw Ali. Haitibery. In the beginning of March, 182 J,
dined with Mr. Hollinbery, at his chambers; went by
the invitation of Hollinbery and Bowley ; knew Illwley
before. Just previous to that period, understood from
Bow ley that he had preferred an indictment against a
gaming-house in King-street, St. James's, and had set-
tled it. Bowley, Hollinbery, and Smi h were present
at ihis dinner, but no other person. While at dinner,
witness discovered that he was iovited for the pu►pose
of getting informati•m from him relative to Taylor.—
Mr. Hollinbery stated his intention to prosecute Mr.
Tayttr. One r f the party inquited of witness how they
mig'.t gain admittance to F.elder's and Taylor's houses?
They stated their object io be to extort money, and
their words were, that •1 both of them were rich, and
would bleed well." Nevet saw Smith before or since
that time.

Cross examined by Mr. Desrusx. Is not the Editor of the
Graeae e fade lam now; gets his living by the publication of
various works; one of these works is the catalogue we see on the
outside of Sumerset-house.

It is a sham catalogue, is it not ?—I &hontd not call it so, and I
think you are wrung in calling it so.
You are in the habit of making money by other means than the
direct publication of it ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE interposed, and addressing
the witness, told him it was not necessary to give any
answer which would eliminate himself ; to which,
thAnking his Lordship, he said he was ready to answer
the question. Mr. DENMAN went on—

have you ever received money for keeping the names of young
artists out of your book?—Certainly never; I never in my life re-
ceived a bribe; I nevervpdirectly or indirectly, received a bribe.
Did you ever receive money from Mr. Taylor ?—Certaialy never
as agift. _ _ _

Did you ever receive money from Mr. Taylor, fur keeping his
name cut of the Catena of Fashion ?—Certainly never. ,
Did you ever receive money from Fielder ?—Never.

Witness never gent to Fielder's with pistols; was in
the habit, about this period, of carrying pistols about
him to protect himself. Did not think it necessary to
siy from whom he got his information concerning Tay-
lor's house; knew that Taylor was rich, but nc t from
his own transactions with him ; did not s4y that " Tay-
lor would bleed we:L" At the time of the dinner, lived
in Jermyn-street; saw B)wley several times; advised
him not to proceed against Taylor as he had done against
the other houses.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jusor, who appeared fur Sniitb—Cimi-
snunicated to Mr. Taylor that he would bt prosecuted, and named
She parties. Is not Editor of the ltambler s Guide was save! in
a gambling-house while play was going on.

Mr. B. °rats proved the hand-writing of Hollinbery
in several documents, which were put in and read. The
frbt was a letter addressed to Mr. Taylor, and requesting
the name of his professional advise,, in order that he
might be spared the necessity of serving the Judge's
order on him personally. The second was another let-
ter, requesting the name of his professional adviser, and
saying two indictments were preferici against him.
Mr. Brookes, cross-examined by Mr. Cows, who appeared for
Bollinbery.—Mr. Holliabery was articled to witness ; during the
time of serving his articles he conducted himself very properly.
It appeared fr.m the evidence taken in addition to
the above, that a pet son of the name of Scanaily was
the bearer of the draft of a deed of release executed by
one of the defendants to Taylor, who appointed a d4y
for seeing Holliubery. The latter w; ited accordingly
on Taylor, who would not see him. He also refused
to give the money, or deliver up the release, and Hol-
linbery having insisted upon the delivery of the docu-
ment, which had been executed by his client, Taylor
sent for a constable, who took him out of the house.
The COMMON SERJEANT, as Counsel for Hollinbery,
addressed the Jury, and contended that no case of con-
spiracy had been made out against his client. It was a
*most serious charge, and conviction would subject the
parties to severe punishment, therefore they ought to
be cautious iu giving their verdict. If they should be
of opinion the other defendants had been guilty of con-
spiracy, that would not inculpate Hollinbery, unless he
also was clearly proved to be a conspirator. The pro.