Star.
London, England, 1811-01-25 00:00:00

BIGFIELD •v. PROCTOR AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN moved the Court to set
aside the verdict in this case, which was an action of
trespass tried before Mr. Baron Thompson, at the
last Nottingham Assizes, wherein plaintiff was non-
suited. The particulars cf the case were these :
Plaintiff was the proprietor 'of a certain close, called
the Vicar's Close, in the aforesaid county. Defen-
dants were Surveyors acting under the Highway
Amendment Act for the repairs of a certain extended
line of road in the parish wherein plaintiff resided.—
The close in question contained within it a stone pit,
which defendants found highly advantageous for the
purposes for which, as public servants, they were apt-
pointed ; and in consequence entered upon it, dug
therein, and carried away such quantities of the re-
pairing materials as they considered requisite for
their work.

Plaintiff' considered their entry into his inclosure a
trespass, and brought his action thereon, which wis
decided as above.

Mr. CLAnxit and Mr, Rianen, Counsel for the de-
fendants, pleaded the 'licence of the Highway Act,
IS Geo. la. sec. 27'and 29, empowering surveyors,
in case of necessity, to Make'entry into suclosures by
the most convenient method.; and- pointing out the
modes of compensation for the dattrage which the
land may sustain theteby, 17ta'Penrue4 Counsel
contended against the itiputitioti of Marti/thrown
out against their clients by the Learned Serjeant on
the other side • and asserted, that the defendants pro
ceeded opno the -.
e premises of plaintiff by an ordinary;
and, (o each party, a convenient-avenue.
Ftoin the statement of a survey upon the premises
in question, Mr. Scrje:mt VAUGHAN denied the
proceeding of • Defendants by a road of contiguity,
and therefore deduced the malicious intention of an
extended injury to the Plaintiff, in consequence of a
previous junta: between them.
The arguments on both sides consisted in a refer-
ence to the clauses of the. Act, upon the matter of
*tensity and convenience. The cbensei for defen:
'Lints insisting upon fro li bilil±y to.attion'df trespass,

•
•
as tiny had paid in edintentation 24*. and therefore
if any action, would lie, tt could be only ea the case
namely, the *sufficiency of compensation.
The Learned Bench seemed to think wish the De-
fendants' Counsel upon the point of Ltirt aad the
Rule was dismissed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 24.

BURNSIDE Iv WARDLAW. •
This was an action brought to recover damages
for an assault and battery.
Mr. Serjeant Comma. stated the case. The plain-
tiff was Steward on board the Lord Duncan East In-
diaman, and the defendant wasgunner of the same ves-
sel. On the voyage to India they had been very good
friends ; but, on their homeward-bound passage, some
' disputes had taken place between the parties • and, in
the month of May last, when the vessel was lying at
St. Helena. the defendant hid, without any provoca-
tion, forcibly pushed the plaintiff from a coil of ropes,
on which, in the execution of his duty, he was sitting,
and hurt his face very much. This was not a case
trumped up for the purpose of procnring exorbitant
damages ; but, as the assault had been made without
any provocation (which he would prove by a person
who saw the whole transaction) he trusted the Jury
would, by their verdict, compensate the plaintiff for
the insult and injury he had sustained.
John Lewis, the Carpenter's Mate on board the
Lord Duncan, was then called. He recollected the
dispute between the plainte and defendant in May
list, when the vessel was lying at St. Helena. He Saw
the defendant pull the plaintiff off the coil of rope,
which was about eighteen inches or two feet high ;
he threw him on his lace en the deck, and plaintiff by
the fall broke hi: nose. The plaintiff gave him no of-
fence ; he desired the defendant to go away, as he did
not wish to have any thing to do with him, but the
defendant refused. The plaintiff at the time the as-
sault took place, was inspecting some people who
were at work in the lazaretts of the ship.
On his cross-examination by Mr. Serjeant BEST, he
stated, that the bridge of the plaintiff's nose was not
broken—he only meant the skin—his nose, however,
bled a good deal. He was within three yards of the
parties, and did not hear plaintiff make use of any abu-
sive expressions to the defendant. Defendant came
and asked for some liquor for the people, which the
Plaintiff not procuring immediately, the Defendant
threw him from the coil of rope. Plaintiff was not
exceedingly drunk—if he was, he could not have got
upon deck to complain to Captain Young, which he
did. He did not see Captain Young turn Plaintiff
away, and call him an idle drunken fellow." He
heard Defendant say, after he had committed the
assault, that he had a great mind to give the Plain-
tiff a good hiding.
Richard Stennett, assistant to the butcher on board
the Lord Duncan, merely deposed to having seen
plaintiff's nose bleeding. He could not swear whe-
ther the plaintiff was drunk or sober.
Mr. Serjeant BEST shortly addressed the Jury.—
He allowed that a verdict must be given against him,
as the slightest touch, in law, constituted an assault—but
it was a case of that description in which the smallest
damages would suffice. He had offered to permit
his Learned Brother (Cockell) to take a verdict of
One Shilling.—lf, however, the Jury were of his
' opinion, they would deduct 1 from that sum,
land the remainder, he thought, would be damages
sufficient.
The Jury, however, could not so readily agree in
their verdict—they retired, and were locked aft for four
hour: and a half!—when they returned a verdict for
the Plaintiff—Damages Five Pounds.