Star.
London, England, 1822-12-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE:

COURT OF XING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 30.

GRaVIS V. LII.

Mr. MARRYAT stated, that this ection was brought
by a client against his attorney, for an assault com-
mitted in the public street. Mr. Lee thought proper
to take offence at some conduct or language on the
part of Mr. Graves, referring to matters in which the
defendant had been professionally engaged for the
plaintiff, and struck him in the street, in the presence
of one of his friends, who would be called as a wit-
ness. In such a case the Jury would not estimate
merely the bodily suffering of the party, which might
be slight, but the degradation to which he was sub-
jected. To give a man a black eye, or to dash his
teeth down his throat, was to inflict greater pain than
gently to squeeze him by the nose, and yet the latter
would he, beyond all question, the greater injury.—
He therefore trusted that the Jury would give the
plaintiff it reasonable compensation in damages for
the wanton outrage committed on him by his attorney.
Mr. Richard Mills, a.hop-merchant in the Borough,
stated that in November last he was standing at his
own door, conversing with the defendant, who he be-'
lieved, had been professionally concerned for the
plaintiff, when the plaintiff came up and called him
ig a paltry scoundrel." The defendant immediately
struck him a blow on the breast and knocked off his
hat. Mr. Graves said That is all I want ; words
are not actionable, but blows are." He did not
think it a very violent blow. This was all that passed
in his presence.
On cross-examination the witness said, that at the
time when the plaintiff came up, he was conversing
with the defendant on indifferent subjects. One of
Mr. Lee's arms was in a sling at the time of com-
mitting the assault.
Mr. MARRYAT said, he should not trouble the
Court with more witnesses to prove the same facts.
• Mr. SCARLETT rose to address the Jury for the de-
fendant. As he was beginning,
The Loan CIIIEF JUSTICE observed, that as there
was an assault proved, the plaintiff must have a ver-
dict ; but probably the Jury already thought that a
shilling, or a smaller sum, would be as much as he
was entitled to receive.

Mr. SCA reLETT said, he hoped the Jury would not
give a shilling, but a farthing. As Mr. Marryat had
contended for a graduated scale of assault, he thought
this ought to be placed at the lowest possible value.
If the plaintiff's nose had been pulled (which he well
deserved), the Jury might give him a shilling ; hut
as he had only his hat knocked off, they should give
him only a farthing.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, perhaps the Jury
,tvould think a shilling about the proper sum. The
defendant was an Attorney, and must have known
that by committing an assault, however provoked by
mere language, he made himself liable to an action.
Mr. ScAltuvrr.—An Attorney is a man, my Lord.
I shall never think the worse of an Attorney who
knocks a man down who call; him a paltry scoundrel.
I should think much worse of him it he did not. I
hope, therefore, that the Jury will mark their sense
of this action by giving the plaintiff the smallest coin
of the realm.

The LORD CHIEF JCSTICE.—WeII, Gentlemen, you
mast decide. Tile conduct of the plaintiff was very
provoking, but no language will juitify a blow. It
certainly a case for small damages, and you will
say how small
• The Jury deliberated for some minutes, when
The Loiu Cum, JUSTICE said he thought they
need not take pouch time to consider whether they
should give the plaintiff a shillinq or a farthing..
The Jury immediately found' a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages One Farthing.

OOURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 30.
BURFORD V. SCALES.

This was an action for an assault. The parties are
butchers, the plaintiff dealing in beef and mutton by
retail, the defendant adding to his retail business the
more extensive one of wholesale, in WhitechapeL As
is not unfrequent among persons of their calling,
some dispute arose between them which ended in a
rote, and out of that row came the present action.
Mr. Burford, the plaintiff's case was, that he was
inoffensively speaking tc the defendant,when thelatter
struck him several blows and knocked him down.—
To
prove this he called no fewer than half a dozen
witnesses, all of whom positively averred that the de-'
fendant was the unprovoked assailant.
The defendant met this case by ',tinging two wit-
nesses, whp:as positively swore that. he had quietly
asked the plaintiff for a sum of money which was due
from '11:m, to which, as they alleged, the plaintiff re-
plied by d—ing the defendant's eyes, and threatening
to break the bridge of his nose; and in fact that, to
suit the action to the word, he did attempt to lay
violent hands upon, and do serious injury to, that
useful organ of the defendant, to prevent which the
defendant was obliged to knock him down. These
two witnesses were qtite sure that the plaintiff was
the first assailant.

The Jury, after hearing the evidence on both sides,
and Mr. Serjeant l'eu. for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ser-
jeant VA UGlihN for the defendant, thought the weight
of-evidence against Mr. Scales, and gave a verdict
accordingly:—Wmages 40/. and costs.