Star.
London, England, 1827-08-20 00:00:00

EATON V. TROTTER.-ASSAULT AND BATTERY.

M. Pottocx said that this was an action of assault
and battery, brought by the plaintiff, who is a grocer,
in Pilgrim-stieet, Newcastle, and one of the Surety of 11
Ftiends,who,it was well known,were remarkable for their
peaceable behaviour ; they were seldom heard of being
engaged in litigations of ..ny &act iption. The plaintiff
was a man of vet y small s.atute ; arid the defendant, w ho
is a master- builder,is a man considerably more powerful.
The plaintiff, in the beginning of May, had a house in
Brandling-place, which. amongst others in the same row,
wasbuilt by the defendant. In the front of the houses was
a footpath, which the defendant claimed as his own
exclusively, and denied the general right of way—
which had led to the cause of the present action. On
the 3d of May, the defendant placed a strong wooden
barrier across the path ; and on the plaintiff's return,
home from business, about eleven o'clock at night, he
could not get to his own door, but was obliged to go
through the garden of the next house, and get over the
fence into his own ground.. The defendant, who, it
would seem, had bean w aiting fur him, before he could
reach his own door struck him over the mouth with a
bludgeon, and knocked out three or four of his teeth. He
shortly after was let in by his servants ; they did rot see the
blow struck, but they could prove the condition in which
the plaintiff was wl en they came to the door; and they
would also prove that the defendant was standing on
the other side of the railing, flourishing his stick, and
striking the plaintiff, who with great difficulty got into
his own house. He also called the plaintiff a d—d
rascally Quaker, and told him he had been setting a
trap for him, and had at last caught him. Probably the
fence was built with this view. The defendant had in-
flicted a permanent injury upon the plaintiff; but he
would not ask such damages a. the Jury would expect
had they been individually so treated, because there
would be no bounds for such damages; but for this
cruel,premeditated assault, he would ask for such serious
damages as would act as a punishment to the defendant
for his wicked conduct, and be some ccmpensation to
the plaintiff for the injury he had received. Beipg a
Quaker, he could not go into a Criminal Court, where
evidence on oath only is admitted; his only remedy was
therefore by a civil action.
The plaintiff's apprentice and his housemaid proved
the case. Three ut his teeth were broken, two close to
the gums; his clothes were all over blood, as wet; the
vones in front of the door.

James Gilpin, a chymist, proved that the plaintiff
called at his hou eon the 3d May, and he was then well
and sober. Next day he saw him again, when th:re
was a very severe cut on his lip, and thiev of his teeth
were knocked out. Witness recommended lee:hes and
medicine.

John Trotter, a neiihbour, heard the defendant say,
it was the dL.cl rascally Quaker, he had waited for him
a long time, and had caught him at last. He heard
him say, Niels, 11's gate was left open, and 1 nick'd him.
Margaret Pickering proved that the wooden fence
had been put up that day.
Mr. Layton, a surgeon, proved the injury inflicted.
He attended the plaintiff for a month before he reco-
vered. The plaintiff was a very thin, short man, and
the defendant was thick set, and stood very near six
feet high.
Mr. BROUGHAM spoke at great length in mitigation ;
and Mr. Justice BAYLEY having summed up, the Jury.
found for the plaintiff—Damages WI.