Star.
London, England, 1810-05-18 00:00:00

i

LAW MTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BtNCH, MAY 19.
THE KIND U. PICTON.
Mr. STEPHEN resumed his arguments, this day,Srom
yesterday.—The Court delivered no opinion, but sig-
nified their intention of hearing Mr. NOLAN, as Coun-
sel on the other side, in the course of the present Term.

COURT or COMMON PLEAS, MAY 'l7.
DAVIS v. LADY GRANARD.

This was an action to recover the amount of two
13ills of Exchange, the one for £l2 13s. the other for
tel 2 16s. The plaintiff is a hatter in Bond-street,
and furnished the defendant with several articles in his:
line of business, for which, after a lapse of six years,
she gave her Bills of Exchange, which were afterwards
dishonoured, on being presented for payment. The
acceptances of her Ladyship were proved', and the
Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, to the full amount
of his demand.

FALSE at PRISCNMENTe-GRANGER U. MAUGHELIN

This was an action to recover damages for an assault
and false imprisonnient.
Mr. Serjeant BEST, Counsel for the plaintiff, stated
the circumstances of the case. It appeared that the
plaintiff, who was foreman to Mr. Sherank, sugar-re-
fitier, in the New Road, Shadwell, having been out
on business, returned to the premises of his employer,
about eleven o'clock at night, at the gate of which he
found a considerable crowd of people assembled ; and,
on inquiring the cause, ascertained, that it was a dis-
pi tc, between some Germans, who were workmen in
his master's manufactory, and a party of Irishmen,
who were amongst the throng. Fearing some serious
consequences, he persuaded the Germans to fetire
within the warehouse, and then endeavoured to per-
suade the crowd to disperse ; his exertions were in
vain, and they continued to make a violent disturb-
ance. He then observed the defendant amongst the
crowd, who said he was a cojistable. The plaintiff'
desired him, if he was what he represented, to do his
duty, by dispersing the mob. The defendant replied,
he would convince the plaintiff that he was a consta-
ble, and, wi►hout further hesitation, seized the plain-
tiff by the collar, and dragged him to the watch-house,
where he was detained the whole• of the night; but,
on being brought before theMagistrate,George Storey,
Esq. on the ensuing morning, he was liberated. The
Learned Serjeant observed, that no damages could
be too great for the Jury to give ; it was one of the
most atrocious cases of the kind that had ever come
to his knowledge.
The statements of the Learned Serjeant were fully
proved by evidence. The course of the trial was in-
terrupted by
Mr. Serjeant COCKELL, Counsel for the defendant,
who said, he had a plea in bar to make, which would
entitle his client to a verdict. He then read the Act
of the 46th of the King, for regulating the appoint-
ments and duties of constables, in which a clause was
inserted, setting forth, that 30 days' notice should be
given of any intention to commence an action against
a constable, for alledb►ed misconduct in the execution
of his duty, to the churchwardens of the parish to which
the said constable was attached. This regulation not
having been complied with, on the part of the plain-
tiff, he was, under the direction of his Lordship, non-
suited.