Star.
London, England, 1828-05-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. -

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, W nraniersa, 111•
Sittings at Nisi Prius,in Middlesex, after Easter Term, before
Lord TENTURDIIN and Common Juries.
• MONTAGU v. DYER.
This was an action of assault and false imprison.
ment. The plaintiff was a stone mason, in the emplrl
of his brother's widow. The defendant was a baker.
who had married a sister of Mrs. Montagu. It appeared
by the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses, that on the
evening of the Bth of August, 1826, the plaintiff in his
way home with a bundle of marble blockings, called
at a public-house in Gray's-inn-lane, where he met the
defendant. They drank together, and on the plain-
tiff's . rising to depart he showed the bundle to
the defendant, and told him that he had to take
it to the turner's. The defendant immediately lic-
ensed him of having robbed Mrs. Montagu of
the blackings, and collared him. The plaintiff
then struck the defendant, who returned the blow, and
the plaintiff was finally 'conveyed to the watchhouse on
a charge of felony. The evidence was contradicted to
a certain extent by that adduced for the defendant, se-
veral of whose witnesses swore that the defendant first
spoke about the bundle, and inquired of the plaintiff
what he had in it. They denied the collaring by the
defendant, and stated that the plaintiff, who appeared
confused when asked about the bundle, struck the de-
fendant before the latter touched him. It was proved
that Mrs. Montagu had lost some stone and marble, but
it did not appear that there was any reason to suspect
the plaintiff of dishonesty, for he had remained in Mrs.
Montagn's service several months after the transaction.
Lord Tawrettnart left the Jury to decide upon the
confircting testimony, as to which of the parties com-
mitted the first assault, telling', them that the plaintiff
was clearly entitled to their verdict for the false im-
prisonment.
After r etit ing for an hour and a half, the Jury found
for the plaintiff— D images 201.
WEAVER V. 'OYSTER.

This was an action for breach of promise of marriage.
The plaintiff's case having been stated by Mr. GUl-
lity, Ann Weaver, a daughter of the pinintiff 's fonder
husband, was called to prove it. From her evidence,
it appeared that the plaintiff, who resided at Bother-
hithe, was 64 years of age, and had formerly been in
business, but now lived on an annuity of 701. per ann.
left her by her late husband. The defendant, who had
been.a linen-draper, was between 70 and 80 years of
age. He had retired from business, and now resided
at High Wycombe. The parties bad been acquainted'
a considerable time; and towards the latter end of last
year, the defendant made a propossl of marriage to thel
plaintiff. Alter arranging the terms of the proposed
settlement (the defendant stating that be was possessed
of 2004 a year, besides the house he lived in), he fixed
the first Tuesday in the new year for the wedding.
.• The cross eaamination of the witness by Sir JAMES
, SCA/MITT afforded much amusement. It appeared that
the parties bad for some time carried on a correspon-
dence, in which they combined expressions of their
amatory sentiments with religious reflections peculiar
to a certain sect. The witness was asked by the Learned
Counsel, whether by the union with the defendant
the plaintiff had not expected to increase the num-
ber of Goo's creatures? To which she replied, that
she did not know ; but she admitted that the plain-
tiff had said, that if die union was not likely to
promote the glory of Gun and the good of their souls,
she hoped it would not take place. A letter bow the
plaintiff to the defendant., written in Drcember last,
cont.ining an expression to the same effect, was then
put into the witness's hand, and she stated :hat it was
after the receipt of that letter that the defendant de.
clined to fulfil his promise of marriage. The plaintiff
first addressed the defendant as .• My dear," commen-
cing her letters with My dear Sir," upon which the
defendant observed, that she had got the start of him
in using the expression "my dear.'
Sever'l tenets from the defendant to the plaintiff
were here put in and read. In one of them the defend•
. ant, alter referring to-the happiness which he expected
to derive from his intended union with the plaintiff,
stated, that he had lately heard an excellent sermon
from the Acts, but bad not been able to recollect much
ofir, having been attacked with a violent bowel com-
plaint--(Roars of laughter).
With the reading of this letter the case closed, Lord
TINTIOUDIN observing, that in his opinion it ought not'
to proceed farther. Such an action as this, with such
.cerresponden ce, ought never to have been brought into
Court. He put it to the Counsel on both sides, whether
they had not better consent to a verdict being entered
for the plaintiff, with a shilling damages.
The Learned Counsel yielded to the suggestion, and
-a verdict was entered accordingly.
Lord TENTERDLII immediately turned round to the
students' box and said, he hoped the letters would not
appear in the newspapers, as they were quite unfit for
the public eye.
COURT OF COMMON
,KfRAS, NAT 21.
Ll3/16.--TUOILMOD rn. SMACLEL.
Mr.gergeant Twoot stated the case to the Jury. This
was on action for a libel contained in the Jean BNB
Newspaper, in a criticism upon the exhibition of
paint-
inns at the Royal Academy. The plaintiff had paiote4
a full length portrait of his. Majesty, for which pie
Jklajesty had been graciously pleased to sit, and had
seat it to the Exhibition—bassi in the notice coo.
rained of it in the John Bull was s passage, to the
&Mowing effect Thai the impudence of an indivi-
dual deserved to be 'exposed ; that a person named
Thompson, who put after his name the letters,
R. H. A. had painted a portrait of his Majesty. which
was only fit for a sign-post at an ion, and that he
bad imposed on his Majesty by asking him to sit fur his
portrait, as part of a representation of his Majesty's de
Future from Ireland. His Majesty had condescended
to sit for a short time, and Mr. T. then stuck the sketch
of his Majesty's face upon a piece of canvass, and sent
it to the Exhibition as a full-length portrait." This was
the libel complained of—and he contended that it, ex-
tended so far beyond the bounds of fair criticism, that
his client was entitled to a verdict for such damages the
Joey might think an equivalent for the injury a profes-
sional mans must sustain from a libel so unfounded and
Malicious. The picture would be produced to the Jury,
and they would judge whether it was such a one as de•
served to be characterised as a daub, fit only for the
signpost of simian.
The Learned Sergeant. then called evidence, which
showed that his Majesty bad sat for the plaintiff, who
was to have painted a picture of his Majesty's departure
from Ireland ; that a military uniform had been sent for
Oa that occasion (the picture represented his Majesty as
dressed io a frock coat); and that since then the canvass
had been enlarged, and the Bishop's length. had been
*Wised to a fall length portrait. It was also proved that
his Majesty bad sat only for about a quarter of an hour,
sod that in that time the sketch of the face only was
taken. The closed the case for the plaintiffs
Kr. Sargeast WILDA addressed the dory for the deo;
faidaattaid onteaded that Goalies like damage could