Star.
London, England, 1825-10-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGEIIC~

COURT OF KINGS BENCH, OCTOBER 22.
• . L.Aliiiitinitit V. CAVSTON.
Mr. atiltifiAbi opened the pleadings, and the Cote.-
mon Serjeant (Mr, Wins' A ti) state) the case to the Jut y.
—This was an action of a totally hovel nature. The
plaintiff had hired apartments in the house of the de-
fendam,in Bolingbroke-row,Walworth,and had rethoind
his gtfods into them, when, on the 19th of Matich last,
a fire broke out on defendant's premisei, by which the
goods of the plaintiff were destroyed. The acti in was
brought to recover the value of the furniture arid goods
destroyed ; the declaration alleging that the defendant
had wilfully and maliciously prevented any alarm being
given to the plaintiff's wife, by which she WAS prevented
liaving her property.
A servant of the plaintiff proved, that the defendant had for
some time prevented her giving the alarm of fire to her mistress,
whia was lying ill in bed.
Several other witnesses gave evidence to the amount of the
plaintiff's loss, and to the defendant having promised to reimburse
him out of bis receipts under his policy.
Mr. ADOLTiIUS. for the defence, contended, that by
an old statute of Queen Anne, relative to recoveries of
losses sustained by fire within the bids of mortality, and
by 14. George 111. no ac ion could be brought against
any persons for the recovery of losses sustained by fire
which had been accidental. He put it to the Jury
whether there was any evidence that the defendant had
been actuated by malice in refusing to let the servant
inform the lodger of the fire? With respect to the pro-
mise of reimbursing the defendant for hi, losses, it was
not on the decimation, and it therefore form:d no part
of the present action.
Verdict for the defendant.
REBECIC V. KNIGHT.
This was an action brought on behalf cf a poor pig-
keeper and cow-feeder at Windsor, to recover damages
for a libel upon his cha' acter, published in the News-
paper called The Buchiaghaufshii, Linz: le, the Windsor
and Eton Fxpress, and ifrading Atonal.
'lnc facts of the case were simply these :—The plain-
tiff kept four cows and a few pigs, at Windsor, and to
eke out a means of subsistence, he let out the rooms of
his house to labouring people, a: the rate or ss. a week.
A p-,or man, of the name of Richcroft, had taken one
of the plaintiff's rooms, at the above tent, for the ac-
commodation of himself and three children, and a wife
whom he expected to be confined. He had afterwards,
agreed to take an additional room, at Ss. 6d. a week,
upon which he had paid a portion of his rent in ad-
vance. The plaintiff had, however, refused him admis-
sion into this extra apartment, and he had therefore burst
open the door, which had led to a quarrel and contest
between him and the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's wife ;
and the case being brought before the Magistrates, they
were held to bail to take their trial for the assault. At
the ensuing Quarter Sessions, the case was heard, and
both Rebeck and his wife were acquitted. Under these
circumstances, the defendant had published, in the Paper
in question, a statement that the plaintiff had behaved
with the utmost brutality towards Richcroft, by assault-,
ing him, by beating his children, and by taking the bed'
from under his wife during her confinement, by which
he had terrified her almost to the degree of losing het
life. The publication then proceeded to state, that this
conduct was doubly brutal on the part of this pig-
keeper, Richcroft having recently known better days,
and the pig-keeper himself having been .previously re-
lieved by a public subscription, upon the occasion cf the
loss of two of his four cows. The alleged libel de-
scribed the conduct of the plaintiff as a brutal violence,
too painful for the honour of human nature to record.
The defendant pleaded to the present action, that part of the
rbel was a fair report of the proceedings for an assault taken
against Itebeck, before the Magistrates, and that the remainder of
the alleged libel was true.
M:. Scauterr, for the defence, contended that the action was
of a most paltry nature, contrived by the Attorney for the sake of
his c,:sts; and lie ridiculed the idea of the plaintiff having sustained
any injury by the publkation.
The case went to the Jury upon the evidence, to support the de.
fendaut's two pleas of justification; and under a very strong charge
,runt the Judge, the Jury found for the plaintiff—damages, £so.
WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.

John Austin was indicted for assaulting Thomas
Ford, one of the gaolers of Bow-street.
The pi ironer, it appeared, was ordered to be locked
up in default of bail, and on Ford's taking him out of
the Office for that purpose, he suddenly turned upon,
him, and, after knocking him down, jumped upon his
chest, and seizing his lett wrist with his teeth, bit out
a large piece of flesh. The outcries of Ford brought
other officers to his assistance, and the prisoner was se.
cured, and by direction of Mr. Halls, placed in irons.
The wound on the wrist of the Officer is yet in such an
alarming state as to leave it questionable whether he
will not lose the use of that hand. Verdict—Guilty.
Sir Rickman Brame observed, that Ford was one of the most
humane, harmless, and inoffensive Officers he had.
The CHAIRMAN, after dwelling on the enormity of the offence,
sentenced him to one year's imprisonment and bard labour.
Robert Charles. stood indicted for assaulting Mary,
the wife of William White, with an intent to commit a
rape. There was another count charging a common
assault.
Mr. ALLEY stated the case for the prosecution.
Mary White deposed, that she lived with her hus-
band, who kept 'a coffee-shop in White Horse-street,
Piccadilly. On the night named in the indictment her
husband was out, and she, as was usual in such cases,
went to bed, leaving her room door unlocked. About
four o'clock in the morning she awoke and found a
person in bed, who she supposed to be her husband.—
(The witness proceeded to state what occurred, and from
which it appeared that the unhappy woman had, under
mistake, surrendered up her person to him.) In attempt-
ing afterwards to raise his head upon the pillow, she
felt a flannel waistcoat, an article her husband never
wore, and being thus convinced how cruelly she had
been imposed upon, she jumped out of he 1, and called
for assistance, and succeeded in rousing a lodger, by
whom the prisoner was secured.
William White, her husband, stated, that he had
been spending the evening. with the prisoner, who ex-
pressed his fears that he should be locked out, and wit-
ness, theiefore, offered to permit him to sit in his par-
lour till the morning, pronniSing also to sit with him.
Witness, after reaching home, soon fell into a sleep,
from which he was awoke to be informed how cruelly
his hospitality had been abused.
Mrs. White was recalled.
Mr. Prawn—Now, pray Madam, had not the man, during the
time*, was in bed with you, his boots and small-clothes on? Mrs.
White—Yes, he had.
Mr. l'lmmes—Was your husband accustomed to come to bed
with his boots and breeches on? Mrs. White—He did once.
The Cmarasuar interposed, and enquired, whether after such
evidence, Mr. Alley would carry the prosecution farther?
Mr. ALLAY replied—" Yes, certainly ; she is an innocent woman,
and the victim of brutality ; she was unconscious that he was not
her husband, and she made no resistance."
Outman—Let the case go on, I will not stop it ; but it is very
strange that she should not make the discovery.