Star.
London, England, 1825-12-10 00:00:00

LAW 'RtPoia,;
COURT 01? CHANCliiti,-icLirpz's.ii. • ,
tiABILAS CORPUIS.I4 At RALLY, A BANICREPT• •
Mired Brotherton had hien committed to Nesigaie
for not answering in a SAtisfaCtoty manner upon. his
starreination before the Commissioners. Being.uovi
brought up on .Aabeaseorpes, Counsel were beatd for
and against his commitment, and thcalgument took
up the larger pnr:ion of the.day.
. The Loam'Name:m.4)a directed, that he Amid be teleased-iati
let gb at large.

•• • :

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Daemons* tr.
SIR JOHN M'OREGOR V. THE ;ART INDIA COMPANY.
This was a bill of discovery fired by Sir J. M'Gregor,
heir and representative of the late Sir J. M'Gregor
Murray, against the.Eastindia Company, their Chair-
man, and Secretary, under the following circumstances.
The late Sir J. M. Murray had, it appeared, been of
Considerable service to the Company in the year 1782,
and his assistance in enabling them to effect the over-
throw of the native Princes who had combined against
the. European Government in India, h.sd been roc 'g-
need arid acknowledged in the fullest terms by Sir
John M'Pherson. Under these circumstances, S:r John
Murray had applied to the East India Company for
compensation and remuneration for his services ; but,
unfortunately, before a final adjustment had taken
place, Sir J. M. Murray died. The present plaintiff, as
heir at law, had commenced an action against the de-
fendants in the Court below, but found himself unable
to proceed without those documents which it was the
object et' the present bill of discovery to procure.. 'ln
the Court below the defendants had severally pleaded
the general issue and the statute of limitations; but in.
the pleas which they had put in in Chancery, they only
averred that they ha I pleaded the general issue. •
The Vroz-Cnazczu.ort was of opinion, that the
defendants ought also to have averred that tire. statute
of limitations had been pleaded by them in the Court
below, and ordered that the present pleas should be
'taken oft-the file, and the requisite amendment made.
COMMITTAL NOR CONTEMPT.—LORD V. LORD.
.In this case Mr. WHITMARsH moved that the. de-
fendant should be committed to the, custody of the
Marshal of the Fleet Prison, for contempt of Court,
in having tensed to pay la. costs, which had been
awarded against *him.
The defendant, who had been brunght into Court
upon a habeas corpus. complained bitterly of the treat-
ment which he had experienced from the opposite
party; and was proceeding in a strain of invective
against the Attorney and Counsel in the cause, 'when
The Vice CHANCELLOR said, that if the defendant
bad any just ground of complaint, the Court would
afford him redress. ptovieed the application were made
in. a proper manner. At present he must stand com-
mitted for contempt.
The defendant, who is an elderly respeetalile4ooking,Gentlemsn,
was then removed in the custody of the proper officer. •
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OW. 9.
•
• POCOCEE v. MORE.
• This was an-action to recover damages for an assault
committed on,the plaintiff, by order ot•the defendant.
The declaratinirsetlorth• that the defendant caused
the plaintiff to he assaulted by a Constable, taken before
a Magistrates and falsely.impeisoned:.
Mr. Baciuortati stated the case. The parties in the
action were relations; rasiditigiathe Cirproad, and joint
occupiers of the same how. , There had been a dis-
pute between them.' . a plaintiff *tint to.'
move had attempted: to cart* away, a litope ; rad
some other articles which the defendant claimed as his.
property. A scuffle ensued,- and the defendant chi,
mately sent for a Headborough to take' .the plaintiff
into custody on a charge of felony. .When the ccststa_ble.
came, the plaintiff consented to go with him to Wor-
ship-street. They went there accordingly; rind this was,
the nature of the assault. . •
Mr. SCARLET?, for the defendant, contended that iii
law no assault had been 'committed, Wean* the plaintiff
went voluntarily to the Magietrates office. The plaintiff's
Case was proved by three witnesses.
The LORD Comm JUSTICE, in summing up the evi-
dence said, he differed. from Mr. Scarlett. His Opinion
was, that the defendant had committed an assault, in
case the Jury should think the charge was unfounded.
The consent of the plaintiff to go with the officer could
not qualify the detention of his person, if that detention.
Was illegal.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Ons FortAinit
COCKNEY SIPORTINO....-PALIII ER V. SPARKS.
This was an action to tecever dimages for an assault
and false imprisonment. • •
Mr. Gunszv stated that the plaintiff was 'an opera-
tive coachmaker. The defendant keeps the Chalk
Farm Tea Gardens. In July. last the plaintiff and some,
companions had been to see a balloon ascend ; on their
return, they were walking over a path near the de-
fendant's Tea-gardens. where Mr. Groves and others
were asiembled aka shooting' match. The sportsmen
were amusing themselves with shooting a number of
sparrows. The boys were pursuing wounded sparrows
which fell from the guns_ of these expert marksmen.—
The plaintiff stopped a few minutes, when a sparrow:
fell on the path near him. The boys ran to take it. but
cdtld not get over' a hedge. The plaintiff said'he
would get it for them, and was mounting the hedge
for that purpose, whenthe defendint came up •witla a
gun, called him a scoundrel,. and pushed the muzzle
of the gun against his side. A scut le apd a
constable coming up, the plaintiff .was . carried to the
gardens, where he remained a short. time in custody,
and was suffered to go away.: -This was 'the assault,
and the Jury would no doubt give damages to prevent,
in. future, any man (ram using a gun under similar
circumstances. Mr. Gurney. califd witnesses to sue,
his case.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendant said, be should
convince the Jury that:Mr. 'Spintes'had done nothing
the lair/ would forbid. Prelims who had lately strewn
their exploits in pigenti-shoeiting bad excited a spirit for
the same sort of amusement in 'the more humble classes,
namely sparrow sportsmen. Sparrow shooting matches
had drawn such Immense crowds to Chalk Farm and
,the..neishbouthuod of that taverrOhat Mr. Spar kes"wils
toMpelled to keep a Constable constantly in waiting. to
prevent a breach of the :peace: Mr. Sparkes found the.
plaintiff committing a trespass on his hedge, and warned.
him off. The defendant.- not only refused to go but
seized his pern....The constable came up, seeing the
violence of the plaintiff, who committed the first assault.'
'When the plaintiff was taken to the gardens, Mr.Spatkes
let bim go. He shbuld prove sh case, and the defendant
'would been:o**w .a verdict.
4.trre !own* wipe:awl bail proved the statement of Mr.Sear-
%MU the Jury found their verdict tof the defendant upon the charge
of falieli4MountAt and foe the plUndif on thee hazivee` Miault.
with It4ty.Slulliop Ilirnageo.
•