Star.
London, England, 1822-01-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENOE;

COURt OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY ja.•
lITZITZI V. NEOODEN. 4.• • •
This was an action of auault and battery. Aetig-,
ment being allowed to pass by defaul!, a writ of inquiry
to assess damages was executed in the Sheriff's Court:
the plaintiff appeared by Counsel, the defendant
.by:
his attorney; and the Jury gave damages £BOO. •
Mr. Sea imam last Term, upon the ground of,
excesive damages, obtained a Rule Mai for a new
writ of inquiry.
Mr. CHARLES PHILLIPS contended, in 'hewing
cause against the Rule, that the propriety or, impro-
. priety of the damages must depend upon the parti-
cular circumstances ofthe case. Before he proceeded
to argument, however, he would make (the Learned
Gentleman said) one remark upon the defendant's af-
fidavit. He (Mr. Phillips) was charged, and upon
oath, with having exaggerated to the Jury the facts
of the case. In answer to that charge, he begged defi-
nitively to say, that he had called witnesses to support
his statement to the Jury ; that those witnesses had
been cross-examined by the defendant's attorney ; and
that he had applied no term or epithet to Mr. Brog-
den's
conduct on the occasion in question which he,
was not quite ready to repeat and to sustain. Mr.
Phillips then went on to observe upon the nature of
the existing application—an application which a Court
would always, he submitted, be indisposed to favour;
and cited nearly a dozen casesof assault, slander, libel,
malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment, where
Judges had declared that, in actions of tort, nothing
but, damages enormous, outrageous, and monstrously
disproportionate, could warrant a Court to interfere
with the verdict. He admitted that there were cases
cutting the other way ; but those were principally
cases in which favour or passion had been suspected
on the part of the Jury ; and the Jury seemed to
have been considered, by the very highest Law Au-
thorities, as the only true judges of compensation,
for wrong. Mr. Phillips then detailed, at veryconsi-
derable length, the circumstances of the assault (which
was of a very aggravated description); and after
going through a number of uninteresting affidavits
on both sides, was warmly contending that the ver-
dict must '.e affirmed, when
The Coent desired to hear the other side.
Mr. Sc.saLerr addressed their Lordships in sup-
port of the Rule ; and declared, that if lie could
have doubted his client's complaint of' exaggeration,
the speech u hick Mr. Phillips had 1u-t made to the
Cana would have fallyconvinte,l him that that com-
plaint wa, a just one. Ile did not que-tion the au-.
thority of the cases cited by :sir. ; but he,
should contend, successfully be hoped, that their scope
Livid not reach to the case before the Court. No doubt
that damages must be unwarranrable to be set aside;
but there was no authority to sheiv, that where they
were u.iwammtahle they should not be set aside.—
The Learticd Counsel then comniented upon the cir-
cumstances el the case as they had actually occurred.
and maintained, that for such an assault as the deteti,i-
a.t. Ilia been betrayed into co-lin:king, LOO was ani
ur.reasnnable measure f compensati,,n.
Mr. DENMAN followed on the same side ; and dwelt
u; on the peculiar inability of a 'Sheriff's Jury, ex-
posed without the aid and-direction of a Judge, to
resist the eVipience of the plaintiff's Counsel.
The Loins CHIEF JUSTICa. said, that the defend-
ant's afii lavit charged Mr. Phillips'.statenient, hirer y
sweeping terms, as exaggerated and untrue ; but cer-
tainly there tras no given point in that statement of..
Mr. Phillip' which the dklendant (oti hio.oath) now
ventured to contradict.
Mr. DENMAN said, that the statement had, at least,
ben exaggerated.
Mr. Justice Us-rt.—Few verdicts, believe, could,
stand if such exaggeration were sufficient ground for
setting them aside. Would not some of your's, Mr.
Denman, be in an awkward predicament ?
Mr. DENMAN concluded by contending before
their Lordships, that the damages were vindictive;—
and that they were given rather as a measure of pu-
nishment to Mr. Brogdett, than as the just retribu-
tion due to Mr. Stevens.
The Loan CHIRP' JUSTICE had no hesitation in say-
ing, that if the verdict had proceeded upon a wrong
impression, it would be the duty of the Court to set
it aside; but upon none of the affidavits presented to
the Court could he (the Lord Chief Justice) find proof
of any such fact. The feelings of the Jury had, pet-
haps, been excited, and in a considerable degree, by
the statement of the plaintiff's Counsel ; but the Jury,
arta-that statement, had evidence before them, and
it was upon consideration of that evidence that they
had found their verdict. Upon the question of da-
mage, hi. Lordship would make but one observation.
If the facts went to a second Jury, it was very pro.
liable that the plaintiff would get as much as behad
got already; and it, at a second trial, he did net the
same amount, that amount would form no plea for
setting aside the verdict.
Mr. Justice 110LROYD was of the same opinion.
Mr. Justice BEST did not subscribe to the argu-
ment of Mr. Phillips—that damages, to be set aside,
:mist be mon arous and outrageous; but (after com-
menting in very strong terms upon the defendant's
conduct) the Learned Judge declared, that he sae•
tio reason for disturbing the present verdict.
Mr. Justice BAYLFY was not in Cow t.—The Rule
vra3 refused.

At Aylesbury Sessions last week, Sir EDWARD
CAnarNoTox, Chairman, there were no less than ten
appeals respecting pauper settlements. A county rate
of three farthings in the pound being ordered, Lord
NUGENT noticed that the county rates were much
higher than any of the adjoining counties, and moved
a 'fte,olution respecting the manner in which con-
tracts are made for executing work in the prisons,
hall, and other public premises, and for supplying
articles of consumption, pledging the Court to an
opinion, that all such matters should he open, in
every caq., to public competition by sealed tender.—
Aker some discussion, wherein it appeared the opinion
of she majority that such a resolutiot would be more
properly adapted upon the undertaking some specific
thr -.me eras withdrawn, but the Noble Lord
,s intention. of applying himself further to
of the.tOunty expenditure.
iingham Papers of last week contain a
ewer than twenty-Ave runaway husbands,
left their families chargeable to drat parish.

• • •
work, the sar
expressed his
the •lualect of
The Birrni
list 'of .no fess
who Jove