Star.
London, England, 1830-12-20 00:00:00

1

i

•

ii. I
' i .

I::..

I

1.,

LAW REPORTS.

WALTERS V. 5/4ITR.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 18.
THE EINU V.
This was an indictment against the defendant for refusing to serve
the office of constable.

It appeared that on last Easter-day, the Trustees of the parish of St.
Bartholomew the Great, who are the persons composing the Select Ves-
try of the said parish. appointed. as they were empowered to do by Act
of Parliament, the defendant to fill the office of constable in the parish.
The defendant refused to comply with the decision of the Trustees, and
1111rpiessot indictment was laid against him.
The necessary proof of the power of the Trustees to make the ap-
pointment, and of the eefendant's having been elected, was given.
Mr. PRENDSROAST addressed the Jury for the defence, and
Mos/ ht forward evidence to prove that the notice usually served upon
petsons called upon to fill the office of constable was not given to the
defendant, and also that it was to prevent the defendant from being en-
abled to serve the office of Overseer, which once the generality of the
pasishioners wished him to undertake, that the trustees selected him to
Gal the office of constable. It was also proved that he was appointed
Is the office in question in opposition to the usual course adopted by
the trustees; namely, that of selecting the oldest parishioner in ro.
Luton.

Lord TZPITENDFN said that the defence set up could not vitlate
die power exercised by the trtp:tces.
The jury accordingly returned a verdict of Guilty.

This was an action to recover the sum of 431. 16.4 fur work and
labour.

The plaintiff was hired as dispenser of medicine to the Royal
Western Hospital, in the vicinity of Bryanston-square, at a salary of
Ws. per week. The Royal Hospital proved a very unprofitable specu-
lation, and the present action was brought against Mr. Osborne Smith,
a highly-respectable gentleman, as one of the managing Committee,
lot arrears of wages due to the plaintiff.
To prove the liability of the defendant, a Mr. Slee was examined at
so.ue length. In his cross-examination he admitted that he was the
oitginator of the plan for the Hospital. He had one house at first, and
afterwards the two adjoining houses were thrown all into one. The
Ilospiral was under the patronage of the lace King and the late Minis-
ters : it had turned out an unprofitable speculation, and he (wiiness)
had lost by it He nominated the Governors, in the first instance;
also the Physicians and Surgtons. The management was latterly con-
fined to a Committee; the defendant had acted as one of that Com-
mittee.

For the defence it was proved, that the plaintiff had previously
brought an action against Mr. Robert Hunter, another of the Com.
mince, and which action had been compromised on payment of 151.
and 51. odd costs. It was contended that this sum was paid in full
satisfaction of plaintiff's demand.
Lord TE)ITF.RDEN considered that the receipt for the 151. was no re-
lease to the other members of the Committee for the balance due to
the plaintiff.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount calmed,
deducting the 151.

THE XING V. HESSTON AND OTHERS.
This was an indictment, on the prosecution of the assignees of
3lessrs. White and Metcalf, formerly linen.drapers, of Lamb's-conduit.
street, for a conspiracy. The principal circumstances out of which
this proceeding arose were detailed some time ago in the report of a
trial of an action in the Court of Common Pleas against the defendants,
at the suit of the assignees, in which the latter obtained a verdict for
a very large sum of money.
When the cue was called on to day,
Sir J. SCARLETT stated, that as the money had been recovered in
the action, he was instructed not to offer any evidence in support of
this indictment.

The Jury then, under the direction of Lord Tenterden, returned •
verdict of Not Guilty.

LONDON ADJOURNED SESSIONS, Dec. 18.

CAIN. C0N.......1NAL01T1T AND BLOWS.

Sarah Read was charged with an assault on Anne Davis, on the
it h instant.

Mr. PHILLIPS, who appeared for the prosecution, stated that the as.
unit had its origin in what was, unfortunately, a prolific cause of strife
among females--jealousy. Whether in this case the whole was a fancy
K tot, it would appear from the punishment inflicted on the prose.
accutritt that the defendant had, to use a low phrase, committed a
little excess.

The prosevitt ix, a little hard-featured woman, about 60 years old
tame into the box with her nose covered with a white plaister and her eyes
blackened. She seemed to have got a good share of punishment. She proved
the aasault,and when pressed upon cross-examination did not deny that
she had given some cause for jealousy. She was off and on at
the defendant's house, who was a nurse at St. Bartholomew's. and on
the occasion which led to the assault, Mrs. Read's husband had locked
her in the room all night, and made her rest on the bed beside him—
that was all. She liked him nothing the better for the usage he gave
her. She came to do some of the defendant's business for her.
The Jury found a verdict of Guilty, recommending her to mercy, one
of them declaring his opinion that the prosecutrix had only got her de-
serts for " doing another woman's business in her absence.
She was sentenced to a fine of la. and discharged.
She anticipated some such sentence, as she had brought a single shil-
ling with her, tightly folded in one corner of a handkerchief, which she
took out and handed to the °Seer of the court, who instantly returned it
to her.

The Recorder called back the prosecutriz, and recommended her rot
to remain an close to another woman's husband again.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS, Dic. 18.

Samuel Mobs, a police constable of the C division, No. 62, was in.
dieted for violently assaulting, on the 26th October last, Lydia, the'
wife of John Thurston who keeps a public-house in Berwick.street, Soho.
Thomas Free deposed, that the defendant was called In to clear the
house, as three men wanted to be served with liquor after the proper
time, which he refused to do, and flourished his staff about, threatening
to take the witness and Mrs:Thurston to the watchhouse ; and that he
also pushed her in a violent manner.
Airs. Thurston stated that the three men had been turned out, but
when the policetnan forced his way in, they came in with him ; upon
which a scuffle ensued, during which her gown was torn, and that he
used abusive language to her.
The defendant, in his defence, stated that the leg of one of the men
was jammed in the door, and he was crying for mercy. The men per-
severed in forcing their way into the house, because the landlord had
detained a hat and a handkerchief belonging to one of them. Had
these been returned there would have been no disturbance. lie con.
eluded by positively denying that he had treated Mrs. Thurston with
any violence.
Mr. Ron, the Magistrate, before whom the case was brought at
Marlborough.street Police office, was on the Bench, and stated that be
considered it too trifling to hold the prisoner to bail.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The CUMIN/i ordered him to pay is. and be discharged.
Thomas Moore was charged with being concerned in pulling the
fence down at the corner of Southampton-street, in the Strand.
On the 9th of November last, Mr. Nodes, tailor, deposed that he saw
the prisoner assisting the mob In tearing the planks down from the
fence ; that he seized him, and went with him to the police-station.
The private watchman deposed that the mob pulled down the fence
in question, but be did not see the prisoner there.
Mr. ALLKY addressed the jary for the defendant.
The jury found the defendant Not Ouilty.