Star.
London, England, 1822-12-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCS.

CeRT OF ICING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 4.

BURN v. 111./NEIN.
• This action was brought to recover the sum 01
£59; 7s. 6d. had and received by the defendant to the
plaintiff's u e.
It Appeared in evidenee,-that in 1814 Miss Dunkin,
the defendant. kept a schoa at Maidstone, the terms
of which were 25 guineas a year. To this school Mrs.
Burn sent one of her danOters, and for some reason
which did not appear, paid 50 guineas in advance for
two years. After Miss Burn bad remained six
months in the school, a fire broke out in Miss Dun-
kin's rooms, occasioned by her reading in bed, and
Miss Burn, who slept in the next room, ran in on
hearing the alarm. She found the curtains in Barnes,
and was so alarmed, that she was taken ill of a fever,
went home, and shortly after died. This action was
now brought to recover a proportionate part of the
fifty guineas for the time subsequent to the death of
the pupil.
Mr. PLATT, for the defendant, submitted to the
Lord Chief Justice, that as the consideration for which
the money was advanced had not wholly failed, the
plaintiff could not recover it in this form of action ;
and he teferred, in support of his objection, to the
case of " Taylor e. Hare," 1 Bos: and Pul. New
Reports 260.
The LORD CHIRP JUSTICE observed that the pay-
ments for beard and instruction at school were made
at regular intervals, and therefore, in his judgment,
were so divisible as to suppot t the action in its pre-
sent form. He would, however, take the opinion of
the Jury on the question of fact, whether the agree-
ment was for two years at all events, or for two years
if the parties should live?
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mage 7s. ad.
DECEMBER S..—WOLF V. LEVY.
Mr. HUTCHINSON stated this was an action for an
assault, to which the defendant had pleaded that he
was not s nifty.
Mr. SCA KLETT stated, that the parties. were both
of the Jea isb persuasion, both lived in Hemmings-
row, and both dealt in old clothes. The defendant',
Mr. Levy, seemed resolved to monopolize the whole
trade of the place ; for there were three other Levys
all in the row, and he therefore attempted to take
his custom from the plaintiff. He was in the habit
of accosting customers of the plaintiff, and saying
that he sold things cheaper ; but this was not the
ground of complaint ; for he had proceeded from
words to blows, and violently assaulted Mr. Wolf._
What defence might be atte,upted, he could scarcely
imagine : the parties were of the same religion, and
that might be excuse ; they were near neighbours.
and that might be alleged for provocation; they were
of the same trade, and that might be the cause of
quarrel ; none of these ground, could furnish a de-
fence for outrage, and yet it mast surely be on one of
there that the defence would be rested. In shorts
there could he no defence, and the Jury would give
such damages as should teach the Jews of I:mi-
ming's-row that they were to keep the peace towards
each other.

Two witnesq.s, Thomas Spiny and James Bargess,
were called, who were mere passer, by at the time Of
the assault, and ‘rho deposed that they saw the de-
fendant strike several violent blows. Neither of them
could detail the words which preceded the blows, but
the first heard a noise as of persons quarrelling be-
fore he carne up ; and the second had previously
seen Levy follow Wolf, and attempt to take his cus-
tom from him.
Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury for the defend-
ant. The defence was not, as his Learned Friend had
been pleased to suggest, that the parties were of the
same religion, or the same•row, or the same trade ;
but there might be a fourth and a better ground of
defence, to an assault, which it would not exactly
suit a plaintiff to suggest—that such a provocation,
lead been given as flesh and blood, whether Jewish or
Christian, could not bear. This was not the first time
that Wolf had complained without reason. The
plaintiff had been afraid to call any witnesses but
mere passengers, who knew nothing of the origin of
she dispute; but the defendant would supply this
deficiency in the cause. Ile would show that, as he
was standing at the door of a neighbour, engaged in
conversation, Wolf came up and began assailing
him in such language as this—" There stands that
housebreaker; there is not a thing in Lhe house which
belongs to him ; he has been transported (which was
False), and it will ant be long before he is trans-
ported again ;" with expressions importing that be
had cheated his creditors. This language formed no
legal justification of an assault which fbllowed ; but
the Jury would consider whether a farthing would
not be sufficient damages. After the assault, Wolf
said—cc Now I've got what I wanted :" here, then,
was provocation, irritation, and commentation. The
plaintiff had sought for the assault, and provoked it,
.and expressed his satisfaction when he had suc-
ceeded ; they would not, therefore, give him much
compensation for that which he would have been dis-
appointed if he had not obtained.
The Learned Counsel ealled three witnesses, who
swore that the plaintiff used irritating language pre-
vious to the assault ; and one of whom stated that he
ran about as if to find witnesses.
Mr. SCARLETT replied, contending that the wit-
ne►ses for the defence spoke under an evident bias,
and that the case remained substantially unshaken.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE shortly informed the
Jury, that as an assault was proved the plaintiff was
entitled to a verdict ; bat, it they believed that he had
provoked it by insulting expressions, the damages
should be trifling.
The Jury instantly found a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages Is.