Star.
London, England, 1811-12-05 00:00:00

.

LAW IN7'~L/GEIVBL.

GOTiftl OF C 5.4., i, DECEMBER, t
~ • OPERA 110USE---WATERB 17. TAYLOR.
The motion thisAanse, fixed in the last term for
this day, being the first seal after Michaelmas Term,
,vrae. renewed by Mr. Harf this day, on behalf of the
plaintiff ; and when proceeding to make the state-
ment, Mr. Richards, for the defendant, interposed,
and prayed a few days indulgence for his client, to
look into certain affidavits recently fileid, and some so
late as yesterday, on the part of the plaintiff, in an-
swer to that- made by the defendant under an order
of the Court tor explanation.
Mr..HART offered to waive the reading of these
fresh affidavit% rather than grant the defendant fur-
- ther procrastination, feeling confident of the case
.of his client without these affidavits, which were
filed merely to avoid any imputation of acqui-
escence on the plaintiff's part in the statement of the
,elefentlant respecting the items of his account of the
:receipts and disbursements cf the revenues of the
.Theatre. _

Tlic Lord Chancellor asked, when would the
Opera House be opened i to which Mr. Hart replied,
Never, unless it were opened in Darkness, as the
chandeliers were gone."
Mr. Richurds persisted in his !ight to time till Wit-
day next, but was only able to obtain time till Friday,.
when the cause Will be finally beard.
The motion was postponed, and fixed for Friday
peremptorily, Mr. Richards having .stated that it will
Occupy the whole day.

CONSISTORY COURT, bEC. 3. •
ROBINSON 0. &MLR. .
This was a proceeding institudtd by Eleanor Ro-
binsOn (wife of Eenj. Rob;nson) against .lames Mills,
-for defamation. The parties live-in Broad-street, Rat-
. cliff-highway, alit', one day in April last, rn Mrs.
Robinroo's comi.i4 out i.f a Lru,e is that neV.hottr-
hood, Mr. Mills (a pilot) immeliately followed hcr,
.and,-looking over her shouldtr, uttered vet y gross anJ
Indecent language to her, such as cail;ng. Lena w—e,
&c. &c. In support ri tl.i, charAz:, two yitnesses
, were produced, who dep sed the ut famatory words.
.1..-Ou the p rrt of Mr. Mills, was submitted, that,
there was a failure of proof, inasmuch as the witness.:s
spoke to totally distinct period.,; one stating, tha:
the words occurred in April, and the other, on the
' )3th or 14th of May foll-Aving. ""h• Corr*.
- cleanly of opinion, that though one n could ni.t
establish the fact of defamation, yet two might. r:;1.
v.oz,thstandint they spolc:: to cl,c. ,;ct tires ; and 4 or-
tber observed, that there had "ueen y;toss rangnagc
used, without protroc.ith.n, and that he thetcf.,ie p-
peared to be a wiper hject of punishment, and in
ce.nseluerice decreed au to do the usual penance,
• und.pay costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCIT, PEC.: c.
HMG Ij. HAIM'S N.
This was an action by Mr. John King, ag tinst Mr.
Harrison, an attotney, to recafer aecornpensation in
damages for a false imprisonment.. T 1 e defendant
had pleaded as a justification, that the plaintiff was
arrested by viteue of a writ of capiat ad sail:fader:dun,
• founded up, n a judgment recovered by Mr. Harrison
• against Mr. King. To this the plaintiff replied, that
• the writ was quashed by a rule of Court, and that..k
. was taken out for more than remained due uporUhe
• judgment. .
Mr. TOPPING, for the plaintiff, stated the circum-
st. IKeS • of the case, and complained that the conduct
of Mr. Harrison towards Mr. King had been of the
most cruel kind ; without entering into particulars,
it was sufficient he said to state, that Mr. Harrison
• recovered in a former action against Mr. KIT, a sum
of Xl5OO. Having gained this verdict, it cer ta:tily
• was in his option either to have proceeded against
the effects, or ag tinst the body of Mr. King, and in
point of fact bad sued opt three writs of pri facia:
against Mr. King, under which he had received all
0
to about £3OO pi his damages and costs, and yet,
notwithstanding this, he had sued out another writ of
.raltius ad.stnisfasiendum for £l'2oo and upwards, and
had caused Mr. King to be taken in execution for
that sum. lie had applied to the Court, and they
exercised an equitable jurisdiction, ordering the writ
to be quashed upon payment only of the sum remain-
ing due. And.it was for this oppressive conduct of
Mr. Harrison, that Mr. King brought the present
action, to demand from a Jury a recompence for the
damage he had sustained.
By the evidence it appeared, that to one of the
writs oti.fa. the Sheriff had returned ntilk lona, for
which Harrison brought an action against the Sheriff
fora false return, and recovered £llOO, but in suing
out the ea. :a. he ti:l not consider this sum as paid by
King, but included its ametiat in the writ againt him.
• Mr. King was in custody but a few hours.
Lord ELLENEOROLGII told the Jury they were to
consider the damages sustained by the plaintiff in
being wrongfully detained, which, by the evidence,
he was fur a short time.
• The Jury found far the plaintiff—Cemazes £3.
WOOD V. HARRIS.
• The plaintiff was an officer belonging to the Flatten
Garden Police- trice, and the d• fAviant lartread of
the Hat and Tun public house, Hatton-wall. The
• plaintiff charged the defendant with having assaulted
him, and beat him in a violent manner. 'lnc first wit-
. news called in hisbehelf towed, Loy. ever, that, in fact,
• the first assault was committed by the plaietiiF, and that
the whole trans.,cti.nt WAS paltry and unimpiirrant.
The Learned JUDGE Observed, that the Jury, from
what had been proved, thed,fendan... not having plead-
ed that the plaietiff committed the ii:st assatte, must
• find/ verdict for the plaintiff, but a coin of the lowest
: denomination would be sufficient damages to meet the
justice of such a case.—The Jury found a verdict for
• the l laintiff _D images, One Farthing ! costs 4,05.
After the cause was 0), 4T, the plaintiff came into
Cowl, and stated, that at the time of tile assault being
!Committed, the tletendant's servant, Mary Drake, was
tiesient, andin-Order to deprive the plaintiff of the be-
' 4itasivet her evidence,the defendant yesterdayprefeirect
g Jlargeut felony against tier ; the Magistrate, how-
reser, had deliyed ordeeng ber into custody till she
arhould have attended tc give evidence in this case ; she
. -bad accordingly attendA, and was then in Court, but ;
a constable was waiting with Out thedooro eadytd take
her into custody ; tinier these e'rcuntstances he
claim-
-id his Lordship's protection for her.
jaaid.ELLEssaaauaa asked-to see the warrant, as