Star.
London, England, 1803-06-27 00:00:00

NEWTON V TALBOT.

This was an anion for an affault. The parties
were both journeymen fmiths. and the affault corn•
pinked ot. was the throwing a lump of iron At the
plaintiff. which, however' • did nr: hit him : this ac •
lion was confidered. both by the Court and the Jury.
as a trumpery isai,n, brought forwarding. !he put
pole of putting colts tato the attorney's pocket.—Vet
dia for plaintiff—Damages one farthing.

WHATIA Ir. RIPPINHAtI.

This was an anion of trefpafs for breaking intothe
houfe and worklhop of the Plaintiff, an anehoilinith
at Wapping, and preventing a number of men, who
were at work upon an anchor, front firifltiog the
fame, in confequence of which an injury was inflamed.
Mr. PARR laid, this cafe was d'fferent from the fail;
the Plaintiff was indeed the trailer of the men who
were engaged in the tail cause, but he had not, a,
Mr. Comer (fated, urged the paltry action into that
Court; the station arofe from the tagacity .of his
Learned Friend, who knew he Mould become Conn-
ie' again( the Plaintiff, and had therefore fpoken in
order to prejudice Mr. Whates in the opinion of the
jury.
Mr. Etfkine had now become Connfel• for the de-
fendant ; he would, however, not fail to aptly Mr.
Erfitine's description of the Plaintiff in the prefers'
cafe, namely, that he was a refped'able anchorfenith
at Wapping; the Defendant was an Attorney, by
whole conduit the Plaintiff had been perpleked ind
haraffed almolt beyond credit. The (hop then occh•
pied by his client, it feemed, had been claimed by •
Mr. Laurence, who made application to Mr. Rippen
ham to ejet him ; hut as the Plaintiff had been in
poffeffion a confiderahle time, it was found neceillry to
terse no lets than five wain of tight, in'order to turn
him nut, the lett of -which the Plaintiff negledestter
enter his appearance to, *Mil the morning after the
regular time; the Defendant immediately ifinedout
another Piercers from the Common Pleas, whielii;as
let afide by that•Conrt.'on the grounds that the con.
due of the Attorney had been extremely imptoptr.
On the 7th of May the Plaintiff entered his appear-
ance, and on the Lath the Defendant came into..the'
fbop of Mr. Whates; the men were then at yn* on
the anchor of a (hip that was to fail the next morning:l
the fire was ordered tole put nut, and the woamen„
were told, when they lemontlrated, that they Ihould
not work there Any longer. The place was awe.
dingly locked up, and the Plaintiff turned out with.
his family, nnd the collet:menet was, the latter loft*
the fale of the anchor, which ,remained rinkld
eight months after. The Learned Conflict concluded
with nbferving, that he had no doubt bur the Jury
would give thnfe damages which the Plaintiff was en-
titled to.--The evidence called in behalf of the Plain-
tiff proved the fats already stated.
Mr. Fastens contended that the Defendant had
only done his duty as an Attorney, by going with
the Officer to execute the writ of rigl t ; the latter had
not committed a trefpafs, nor had lie behaved mali-
cioufly.
Lord Eeeresoinvon laid, the (petition the rdy7.
•
had to decide upon, was the danorxes the Planta!
wa entitled to from the lots follaine,i by the floppage
of the anchor. He obfenred, that malice with refped
to the De tendant's condo& was no to he confideted;
they would only give Inch damages as would tom-
penfate for the lors fufiained.
The Jury, eller fume deliberation, save a verdift
.for thrPlaintili—Daenagei 51.