Star.
London, England, 1821-12-17 00:00:00

WINSTON V. GLOSSOPP.

This was an action against the defendant for an
alleged assault and battery. The defendant pleaded
first the general issue, not guilty, and second son
assault demesne.

The plaintiff's case was in substance this :—ln
May last, when his Majesty visited Drury-Lane
',theatre, of which the plaintiff is Stage Manager,
orders had been sivcii to keep the lobbies clear of
strangers during his Majesty's entrance into and de-
parture from the Theatre. The defendant, who is
proprietor of the Coburg Theatre, and one of his

Majesty's Honourable Band of Pensioners, being in
attendance on his Majesty on that occasion, had sent
his own servant to the Theatre .to wait for him is
case be should be wanted. Vie servant having sta-
tioned himself in one o the lobbies, the plaintiff, in
obedience to the instructions he bad received, de-
sired him to withdraw, using an expression, as was
alleged by the ,defendant, of an offensive nature,
which being communicated to the defendant, he de-
termined tare:eat it on the first occasion of his meet-
ing the plainillf. It was proved in evidence, that the
t, on the 11th of May, two days after his
!Chesty bad been at the Theatre, called at the stage-
door, and' inquired whether the plaintiff was in the
Muse? He was informed that he was, and an offer
was made to bring Mr. Winston to him; but the de-
fendant said he did not want him then ; he, however,
wished to know at what hour the plaintiff usually
left the Theatre to go to dinner ? He was informed
that be was a very punctual man, and that he gene-
rally left the house about ten minutes before four
o'clock. This was about twelve o'clock, and about
twenty minutes before four in the afternoon of the
ism day, the defendant stationed himself with a
horsewhip in his band at a batter's shop, nearly op-
posite the stage-door in Little Russell-street, to
watt for Mr. Winston's exit from the Theatre. At
four o'clock the plaintiff came into the street for the
purpose of going to dinner, when the defendant in-
stantly crossed over and began- to horsewhip the
traiztif,. giving him several blows across the shoal-
The plaintiff, who is an elderly Gentleman,
and rather low in stature, held up his walking cane
to ward off the blowi,_jupon which the defendant,
who was stated to be a Gentleman betwen 34 and SS
years of age, of a powerful frame of body, and
greatly superior in strength Co the plaintiff, changed
the whip to the left hand,- and with his right hand
struck the plaintiff a violent blow on the face, which
blackened both his eyes. One of the spectators in-
terposed, and remonstrated with Mr. Glosiop upon
the cruelty of so treating a man so much inferior to
him in size. The defendant immediately said that the
plaintiff had insulted his (Mr. Glossop's) servant, and
had turned him out of the lobby of the Theatre,
using the expression, " turn out the lamplighter."—
In continuation, he said that he would horsewhip Mr.
Winston, wherever he met him, and adding, " now
you shall see," resumed the use of the whip, and
struck the plaintiff several additional blows. The
Fifties then separated. One witness said, that Mr.
Glossop, in addressing the plaintiff, observed, " know
that my servant is a Gentleman, but you are a
scoundrel and a blackguard," or words to that effect.
It did not appear that Mr. Winston had given the
defendant any provocation at the time this outrage
was committed, nor was there-iny, evidence of any
previous cause of offence.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL addressed the Jury on
behalf of the defendant, and admitted that they must
find a verdict against the defendant, and the (wily
question for them to consider was the amount of tbeir
damages. In considering
.that question, they must
take into account the rational probability that Mr.
(ilossop had received some gross insult to justify the
intemperance into which he had been betrayed ; for
it was hardly to be believed that he could act in the
manner proved without some adequate cause. The
fact was, that a gross insult had been conveyed from
Mr. Winstoil to Mr. Glossop through the servant of
the latter; and instead cf treating it with the con-
tempt it deserved, he was imprudently betrayed into
this personal conflict. It was clear that he did not
mean to do Mr. Winston any personal injury, for he
had only ch.istisei him with a lady's horsewhip, and
'thereby only meaning to express his sense of the in-
sult he had received. The blow which he afterwards
. gave was provoked, as he was instructed, by the
plaintiff having u ed his walking-stick in his defence.
The defendant, however, must submit to a verdict ;
I and the Jury would take all the circumstances into
1 their consideration.

The LORD ChIEF JUSTICE summed op the ease for
the Jut y, and said it was an assault attended with
circumstances of considerable aggravation. The
plaintiff was clearly entitled to a verdict, and they
would give him such reasonable and temperate
da-
mages (in the absence of all vindictive feeling) as
the justice of the case demanded.
The Jury found their verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages £l5O.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER IS.
POWELL, GENT. B. CAMPBELL.
Mr. PLATT opened the pleadings, from which it
appeared that this was an action brought by the
plaintiff, an attorney, against the defendant, one of
the clerks in the Custom-house, for driving his chaise
against that of the plaintiff, and thereby injuring the
plaintiff's wife. The damages were laid at £6OO,
and the defendant had pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Lee Thomas, a surgeon, who was called in to
attend Mrs. Fowell after the accident, stated that the
injury was so great that a mortification appeared
likely to follow. The injury arose from one of the
wheels having gone over the right leg of Mrs. Powell.
Her health suffered considerably.
Richard Neale, a fruiterer, residing in the City-
road, proved that on the evening in question he had
seen Mr. Powell coming into London, at the rate of
six or seven miles an hour • the road was about forty-
one feet broad: the defendant was going towards
Pentonville at the same time; he was not then whip-
ping his pony at a furious rate; plaintiff was on the
left side, within two or three feet of the path ; de-
fendant was coming from town on the same side,
but nearer to the pavement than the plaintiff; he was
indeed on the path; defendant's gig came in contact
with Mr. Fowelrs chaise, and broke the shafts, and
both plaintiff and his wife; were thrown out. Wit-
ness thought defendant was in liquor, from the
abusive language he used; the plaintiff's horse was a
very spirited animal ; the defendant's was only a pony.
Other witnesses proved the same circumstances.
Samuel Dougall, a coachmaker, repaired the plain-
tiff's gig; the expense was nearly £l4.
Mr. Serjeant If.ssuommi, for the defendant, con.
tended, that the circumstances which had been
proved certainly did not entitle the plaintiff to any
heavy damages. He admitted that the defendant,
was at the ume inebriated. The Learned Serjeant,
in elucidating his argnmedt, repeated the so-often.
quoted lines in cases bf this nature—

" The nag of the road is a paradox quite,.
" In driving your carriage along ;
For if you go ilk you are sure to be rigAl,
Bet if you go light, you are smog!"
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS observed, that draw;

kermess was no excuse for criminality, nor any de-
fence in civil cases, escept where the validity of con-
tracts was the question for the decision of a Jury.
The Jury, considering all the circuafstances of the
case, would be governed by sound discretion in their
"mkt.
The Jury consulted for about five minutes, and
then gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £350.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DECEMBER ic
GRAHAM V. WHITAIABSH, FRANKLIN, GRAHAM, AND

OTilita&

In this case an issue was directed to the Court of
Ktng's Bench, in Ireland, to try whether the plaintiffs
were the legitimate children of the late Major James
Graham, or not. The cause was accordingly tried
at the last Assizes of Cork, ands verdict was had for
the j)laintifE 4
Mr. WHIMAIIIIIffo for the defendants, now moved
his Honour that a new trial might be had at such
time and place as his Honour should be pleased to
direct. He moved on the affidavit of the defend-
ants' Solicitor, who attended the trial at Cork, and
who, after detailing the proceedings, stetted, that to
the best of his judgment the verdict obtained was
against the weight of evidence, and that the Learned
Judge who tried the case did not recapitulate the evi-
dence to the Jury, nor stop to notice the conflicting
testimony of the witnesses produced and examined.
His Himont', without going into the merits of the
case, expressed his opinion that the Court acted in
error when it directed the issue to the Court of King's
Bench, in Ireland—the cause should have been tried
in England, and the Court now, by noticing the pro-
ceedings had in Cork, would only go from one error
to another.
The verdict had for the plaintiffs in Cork, having
been had under an Order, which turns out to be irre-
gular, must of course fall to the ground ; the case
will be further disposed of on a re-hearing.