Star.
London, England, 1818-01-16 00:00:00

committed under this Act, of Paltament, and h^
would contend, that the-damage which Mr. Beck-
with had sustained bi this infaMous and treasonable
mob, did not arise from any offence committed under
this statute—for they had not proceeded to his house
with the intention of pulling it down, but had quite
another object in view. The next point, if the plain-
tiff obtained a verdict, was, what damage ought to
be awarded to him? And he was prepared to argue,
that by farvtlerereckreater part of the sum claimed, could
not be recovered, inasmuch as damages could only
be given for such articles as were destroyed on the
premises, while the work of demolition was going
on, and not for- those that were feloniously carried
away. The Learned Gentleman then contended, that
the object of the mob was, not to demolish the house
but to procure arms-; and that, whatever damage
took place, was effected in the furtherance of that
specific object, which was a felony of another de-
scription, and not at all covered by the statute of
George I. Indeed Mr. Beckwith's legal advisers
were of opinion, that this was merely a breaking, en-
terin&, and stealing, from a dwelling-house in the
day-time—and for that offence four of the rioters
were indicted and tried at the Old Bailey—of which
number one (Cashman) was convicted, and was exe-
cuted opposite to Mr. Beckwith's door. In the next
place, the Learned Gentleman argued, that the
plaintiff could not recover, either for the articles re-
turned in a damaged state, or for those that were,
taken sway altogether—because it had been decided
several cases, that the hundred was only liable for
damage proved to have been done in the course of
the demolition,- and was not accountable for pro-
perty feloniously carried away, which constituted a
distinct felony in itself. The original purpose here
was not to demolish the house, but to get arms, and
afterwards they applied themselves to the rescue of
young Watson, who had been secured for a capital
offence—which rescue was also a felony, under a
particular statute.

Lord Euximenotraii—a The question is, what
would they have done, if they could not get the
young man away ? The second witness stated, that
they cried, Pull down the house, unless he is given
up r They therefore contemplated the doing of a
particular act, unless a certain condition was ac-
ceded to—and they commenced the execution cf that
act. It will be for the Jury, if they find for the
plaintiff, to give the total amount of damages, and
it will be a point for consideration hereafter, how far
the hundred is liable for the arms carried away, and.
not appeasing -to be destroyed in the course of the
demolition."

Mr. Guntfiv—" It will be seen, that all the arms
returned were used for the purposes of demolition. Of
those that were never restored, I cannot •sav what
number was employed in the same way—but i think
it fair to argue, that the arms which never re ap-
peared, to the amount of t 911 were taken away for
one common purpose, and cannot be distinguished
from those that were returned, and bore on them the
marks, of the manner they had been employed."
.The CimisstoilSEAJlLAiltr then stated, that he would
-mot press his objections feither,.'as, with his Lord-
, ships leave, he would have an opporuinftt htittatter
sof contending,' that the hundred was not liable to
astike good the articles Stolen. He should now content
himself with proving, that the taking away of the
guns and pistols from the plaintiff's house had been
made the subject of a prosecution for theft—a distinct
and separate felony.
Mr. GURNEY, in his reply, called upon the Jury,
that the arms lost, valued it £9ll, were all taken for
the purpose of demolition, although they might be
applied afterwards to other purposes.

Lord'ELLENzoaouois slimmed up, and observed,
that by the Riot Act, that which before was a mere
trespass at common law, had been erected into a fe-
lony, for the more effectual protection of private pro-
perty. Of course the remedy by action against the
offenders was taken"away, and that against the hun-
dred (all the inhabitants being as it were pledges for
the good behaviour of each other) was given in its
stead. The primary object had been to obtain arms,
afterwards to obtain the liberation of young Watson ;
and it seemed undoubted by the witness, that had
he not escaped, the mob would have demolished the
house. The arms they used as . instruments of de-
struction against the building, and they were not
takenaway for the mere purpose of obtaining as much
money as they would sell for.

The Jury divided the damage as stated in the
opening of Mr. Gurney ; but they expressed a clear
opiirion; that the arms were all taken ►n prosecution
for-the purpose of demolition.—Verdict for the plain-
tiff—damages £1,281. 13s. 10d.

BRANDY-ft AND POTTS V. WOOD AND ANOTHER.

An action, precisely similar, brought by the plain-
tiffsl who are gur.smiths in the lVli nones. They claimed
752 t 10s. 11d. being 621. 26.5 d. for the repair of the
dwelling-house, 341. I Is. 6d. for damaged guns, &c.
and £655. 17s. for arms taken away.

The COKMOS SERJEANT again urged his argu-
ment, that the purpose was not demo ition, but the
procuring of arms ; but Lord ELLENBOROUGH was
of a contrary opinion, and the Jury concurring with
his Lordship, a verdict was found for the Plaintiffs.