Star.
London, England, 1814-12-02 00:00:00

LAU' INTILLIOANCR.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER I.
DOS CAUSE.-.-CUNNINGS V. HOLMES.
This was an action of assault. The parties both
reside in Mansfield-place, Kentish-town. On the
evening of the 7th of July, when the assault was com-
mitted, Mrs. Cummings was walking up the town,
accompanied by a favourite dog, when the defendant
came up, accompanied by his dog also, and, the ani-
mals disagreeing, fell to fighting. Mrs. Cummings
entreated the defendant to call his dog off, but in•
stead of doing so he encouraged his dog to continue
the combat. At this time they were drawing near the
plaintiff's house, who came to the gate of his front
garden, and desired the defendant to call his dc% off ;
instead of doing so, however, he struck the plaintiff,
who is a man upwards of sixty years of age, and lame
in both hands, a violent blow in the face, which knock.
ed him down and he fell against the garden-fence
with such force that the fence gave way. Mr. Cum-
mings, with ditficulty, got up, and was again coming
up to the gate when the defendant again met him,
knocked him down, and in his fall, his knees were
severely cut. The plaintiff again recovered his feet,
land was a third time knocked down, and the defend
dant fell upon him. Some persons now interfered,
the defendant was taken away, and the plaintiff was
carried into his own house, and remained severely in-
disposed for two or three days, in consequence of the
treatment he had sustained.
On the part of the defendant several witnesses were
called, whose evidence went to prove, that the first
assault was made on the defendant by the plaintiff.
It also appeared, that the defendant, although only
forty years of age, was not far superior in strength
to the plaintiff, he having lost the use of his left side,
from the effects of a paralytic stroke. It was also
further stated, that the dogs of the defendant and
pl tintiff were old antagonists, and never met without
' fighting ; that the defendant had, previous to the
' time of the assault complained of taking place, pro-
posed to the plaintiff, that both the dogs should be
hanged up by the neck, as an !feting to Concord; but
this proposition was not acceded to; and that on the
evening in question, so far from the defendant encou-
raging the dogs, he had used all his endeavours to
separate them. The witnesses called in support of
these facts, however, varied so much in their testi-
mony, that the Jury did not credit them, and found
a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages Je1.50.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL observed, he was sorry
,he could not profit to the full extent of the Jury's de-
cision ; but having only laid their damages at one
hundred pounds, in their declaration, they could not
go beyond that sum.
The Jury then amended their verdict, and found
for the plaintiff—Damages £lOO.
NOVIIIRER 30.••••ERUNE V. WEISEL.

This was an action of assaalt, brought by a mer-
chant against the clerk and nephew of Mr. Groning,
a Hamburgh merchant, with whom the plaintiff had
formerly joint adventures. Upon the defendant's ar-
rival in this country in 1811, he was received at the
plaintiff's house and table. The plaintiff and Mr.
Groning had agreed to refer a matter to arbitra-
tion, which involved the character of the latter, . and
had given rise to much inflammation betweentbem ;
and the assault by the defendant was committed oaf
the morning on which Mr. Groning executed the
agreement of reference, viz. on the 24th of June lass,
at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, at the corner of
Bury-court, St. Mary-axe, in the presence of many
witnesses.
The assault was proved by them to be very violent,
and consisted of the defendant's striking the plaintiff
with his fist and umbrella, without any provocation,
the defendant abusing the plaintiff at the same time
and saying. " it might cost. him £5O, but he did not
care for that."
The Jury, after retiring fors considerable time,
found their verdict for the prifintiff—Damages, 80
guineas, and 40s. costs.'
WINVITS v. MINCHINOTON,
This was an action of tresspass, brought by an at-
torney against Special Pleader. it appeared that the
parties resided in the same staircase, in Brick-court,
Temple; and that. the plaintiff left town for his
health, rom September 1813, till the May following.
leaving his cellars, underneath the building, contain-
ing about a quarter of a pipe of wine, well fastened
with Bramah's patent locks. The defendant having,
during that time, come to reside in the building, ap-
lied to the Steward of the Middle Temple for cellars,
upon which he was told that he might take any un•
derneath the building in which he had chambers,
which were vacant. The plaintiff being out of town,
as aforesaid, the defendant chose to consider his cel-
lars as vacant; and accordingly broke them open,
and occupied them ; he appropriated two dozen and
an half of the plaintiff's empty bottles to his own
cider, and acknowledged to have opened one bottle
of his port wine out of curiosity. When the plaintiff
returned to town he demanded to be restored to the.
possession of his cellars ; but the defendant refused
it, alleging thet the plaintiff was not a member of the
society, as he was, and had no right to chambers. He
offered to accompany .the plaintiff into the cellar to
take. out his wine, and to make good the empty bot-
tles and wine which be had taken. The plaintiff was
compelled to bringan action of ejectment, before he
could recover possession of his cellars ; in which ac-
lion the defendant pleaded, in abatement, that his
!same was Edmund, and not Edward. This put the
plaintiff to an expense of £l6, and to recover this
sem, together with 101. for .the locks, 12s. for the
lempty bottles, and mesne profits for the use of the
'cellars, was the present action brought : there was nal
imputation that the defendant had pilfered the wine,l
andthe plaintiff did not care for damages, having of•
fared to compromise the present suit, upon the defen. ,
dant's making him a proper apology, and paying the
costs out of. pcicket of the action of ejectment. This
the defendant always refused to do, and nobody now
appeared for him to defend.
Lord ELLICNIOROUGH reprobated the defendant's
conduct, and said, that if he had been in an interior
situation of fife, he might have been called upon eke•
volute to answer for taking of the plaintiff's bottles. '
The Jury found•their verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
esre£loo.
plaintiff offered not to sign judgment, if the
defendant would pay him his expences and costs.
Lord ELLEMBOROUGH extolled his conduct, and
said be bad sbewn himself a man who did not de.
sense be uppetleamalik• treatise= be had am