Star.
London, England, 1818-01-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

coURT OF CHANCERY, JANUARY 15.
f`PERA•HOLISETAYLOR V. WATERS.
S. ItomiLiAt stated, that he had to move in this
:ha: a sum of 13001. and upwards, being the
of i iterest on the sum of 29,9731. which Mr.
rr,1141 been ordered to pay into Court on the
,i-D,Tember, 1816, should be directed to be paid
:el tits to Mr. Taylor.
iikar aid Mr. BARBER contended, that the
...tking on the part of. Mr. Waters to pay interest
:it be regarded as conditional, and contingent on
-vent of the negotiation for selling the Opera pro-
-31:4 effect.
le Loao CHANCELLOR inquired whether the last
wn h id turned out a profitable one?
'ill.. BAK/ replied, that he understood there had
been a better. However stormy they had been
le the house, within all was flourishing and

,cas.
;he Loan CHANCELLOR desired that the proper in-
r, be made whether the order existed, and notice
to him to-rnormw on that point ; and as to in-
this Lora,liip said,
" If I do not alter my pur-
before to morrow morning, I shall order that
1,2 paid personally to Mr. Taylor."
WATERS V. TAYLOR.
flAnr said this was an application made for
e porpose of obtaining directions to the Registrar,
p,o, an order, enabling Mr. Waters to account for
expenditure of a large sum of money, which had
applied to the building a new set of dressing-
as in the Opera-house, and making other im-

• .rnents.
sir SAmuzi RoMILLY was prepared to object to
.•
6rJer. It was sufficient for him at present to say,
- nr. Waters had undertaken to conduct the ma-
,m,-nit, and pay every necessary expense for
,iti. a year, although he now came forward to
ie 6,0001. more, which he, in his great preddec...
'Jr the establishment, had thought proper to ex-
in the building of new dressing-rooms.
The CHANCELLOR observed, that it appeared to
to be a larger sum than most of his Majesty's
, would think of expending on such an object.
nvever, would look as the order.
VICE-CIIANCELLOM COORT, JAN. 15.
This morning, so early as nine o'clock, the Court
crowded to excess by a number of Solicitors and
Gentlemen, in expectation of the,Right Hon.
JOHN LEACH taking his seat as Vice-Chancellor.
Bar was never so fully attended on any former
lsion. but of the King's Counsel only Messrs.
TROWER, BiNYON, and WETHERELL, were
At a quarter to eleven his Honour, in his
robes, came into Court, attended by new
He was attended by TINNEY, Esq. an
Tent Barrister of the Court, who is appointed Se-
to his Honour. The motions heard were of
:mportance, but we understand the regulations
by his Honour have given.great satisfaction to
Bar, a^d will be highly conducive to the interests
::tors. Mr. BENTON made the first motion.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 15
THE SPA-FIELDS RIOTERS.
3ECKWITH r. MATTHEW WOOD AND ANOTILICR,
Mr. liort2ANo opened the pleadings. The decla-
.., in this case set forth, that, on the second of
tmrber, in the 56th year of his Majesty's reign, a
rn!,xi- of persons, amounting to more than twelve,
i.! ri,-.::-,u,lv and unlawfully assemble, and did break
..-71.!5, doors, windows, and other parts of the
w:-.::T's house, to the damage of more than 20001.
ix second count, in additicn to this, stated, that
said unlawful assemblage also broke, demolished,
I carried away, a large quantity of fire-arms.--
this the Defendants pleaded, that they were tot
le to make good the damage.
D
IMr. GunNEf ,stated, that this action was founded
3 a Statute, passed in the early part of the reign of
surge I. for the protection of - hidiViduals whose
'.?erty happened to be destroyed by tumultuous
ictriblages of ill-disper-ed *persons. The I,,,earned
eiinsel then proceeded to detail: the circumstances
iich took place in. Skinner-street, on the 2d of De-
tuber, 1816, as-they afterwards were given in evi-
nce, and observed, that, in the course of half an
sur, property to the amount of 12501. was destroyed.
ie present action was brought against two very
spectable Magistrates, inhabitants of the hundred
which the outrage complained of was perpetrated,
d, if a verdict were returned for the Plaintiff, the
mines would be assessed on the entire hundred,—
was admitted that they were inhabitants of the
adred, and liable to this action—and that the
intiff had a right to bring it. All, then, that he
'r. Gurney) would have to prove was, that the
o'l, to use the language of the law, had " begun to
offish the house.' To sustain this action it was
necessary that they should pull the house down ;
vas sufficient if they commenced the work of de-
,tatioa, with that intent. If he proved this, the
v. consideration would be the amount of damages
sad on that point he would lay satisfactory evi-
cc before the Jury. .The Learned Counsel then
oceeded to call his witnesses.
Edward Hone was foreman to the Plaintiff, in
16. He lived at 58, Snow-hill, and was a gun-
-ker. On the 2cl of December, 1816, about one
lock, he was in the s'acip, talking to a Gentleman
met Mr.Platt, who brought in something to repair.
- ::,,ti v:i,ness could not agree, and Mr. Platt was
Val' t,:e shop, when a young man entered with a
stol :1 .is hand. He stamped his foot, and cried
t.:7,,T. arms !" Mr. Platt placed a hand on
.....:!,.,..:Ler of the young man, saying, " My good
a f :olls:tier what you are about !" The pistol
- .. r-:- liatr.ly fired by the young man, and Mr.
- •,•; -:,funded in the belly. About five or six
. . ~
~ ..,.:,, .:eL. the young man into the shop, who
',' .'. Wit less immediately closed the door—
' . l'ai•t e4claimed that he was wounded, and
The pas ish beadle came in,
•,.,ve.the young man in custody to him.
I.
1 t;:, ~ ~ the counting-house, and afterwards
..,!,,. I ~,q. Cr six hundred persons, who had
iiy pm..-c.l LI:. Beckwith's house, returned,
•,,::,‘. yonng man v:‘.s secured, and said, " This is
.v.,,---v.,.'11 have him out." Witness was at the
• and begged of than not to do any damage.—
; ~.tid, "Vv ell have him out." Witness, for the
Y' '-c of p( It.o:g trot:, 2.-o-::y, declared that he had
,d do.‘ a c• tc,,al-1-ine—!--at they did not credit
"ii.,i, and still cried " We'll have him out!"

:1 •ufr Mil.

A brewer's man, with a brootn-stick- in his hand,
then attempted to break the windows. Witness en-
treated him not to hurt -Mr. Beckwith's property,
and again said a that the young man was goose
down Seacoal-lane." The mob retired a little, and
a cry of " To Tower-hill!" was raised, in which
witness joined, in order to get them away. At this
moment, the young man pat his head out of the
two pair of stairs window. He was immediately
seen—and the devastation then began. The brewer's
servant assailed the windows—the frames were
broken to pieces—and the guns which were exposed
for shew were dragged out and distributed amongst
the mob. They entered the shop, and seized the
arms there. They then went into the counting. house,
where there were many guns ready for exportation,
and these they took. W itness was so frightened, that
he left the house, for the purpose of taking a glass,
to cheer his spirits. On his return, he found the mob
still occupied in the work of destruction. They were
throwing pounds of powder, enclosed in tin cases, to
each other—bags of shot were scattered about in all
directions—and the cases of duelling-pistols were
opened.—EHere two accounts, one of arms never re-
stored, the other of arms returned in a damaged state,
were handed to the witness, who declared the items
contained in it to be correct. Indeed some of the
articles he conceived to be undercharged.]—He saw
the young man go out of the shop with the mob.
They would have pulled down the house, he was con;
winced, if they had not found him.
• Cross-examined by She.... COMMON SERJEANT,Wit.
ness was not an evidence on the trials of the persons
indicted for this offence at the Old Bailey—nor was
he present at the trials. He went before the Grand
Jury, and was examined. He did not know the per-
son of Cashman, who was convicted, and executed
before his master's door. The young man took a case
of duelling pistols from the counting-house and
loaded them. He remained in the shop several mi-
nutes with the other rioters. When the people had
seized the arms, they went away towards the Tower.
He did not know whether the rioters did any mis-
chief in the upper part of plaintiff's house. They
called out, a Arms I arms I" and they supplied them-
selves with them. He did not he any one say,
" Let us pull down the house !"
Gwrge Weir lived on Snowhill, within two doors
of Mr. Beckwith. On the, 2d of December he was
in Mr. Beckwith's house, when the people broke the
windows. They cried, " Pull down the bl—y house,
we'll have him out r That was repeated by several
voices. The attack then commenced in the most fu-
rious manner. They first broke the east and after-1
wards the west window. A brewer's drayman, armed
with a broomstick, began to-demolish the windows.
The sashes were completely broken—so much so,
that one of the rioters got in at the east window. The
interior of the shop was entirely destroyed--but
. did not see any of the stone or brick-work damaged.
Cross-examined by Mr. TlNDALL.—Witness gave
his testimony at the Old Bailey on the trial of Cash-
' man and four others, who were indicted for sste:thal
' these arms. He was not sate, whether he then t
that the mob cried out, " Let us pull the house
down!" but he was positive the expresnon was used.
There were a great many boys as well as men in the
crowd. Both men and boys were taking out mans—.
but he saw no boys in the shop. If they merelysianteil
arms, they could have got them without breaking the
windows. Witness saw young Watson. He was the
leader—and he did not think they would have
touched the house, if he had not been taken.

J. A. Haughton, a carpenter, was .employed to re-
pair plaintiffs house, after the 2d December. One
of the windows was broken to pieces—the other was
nearly destroyed. The sashes of the glass-cases were
also broken to pieces. He repaired the windows—and
received 161. Is. ld. for his labour and materials.
Cross-examined-,—The glass-cases were fixed in the
shop. They were shew-g-lasses--but whether such as
persons put up, when they entered the house, and
took away when they 'removed, he could not tell.
John Hunt, a painter and glazier, was employed
to glaze two new shop-vrindows, after the 2d of De.
cember. The expense was 351.65. 3d. His bill for
painting was 91. 19s. These were fair charges.
Cross-examined—His repairs were confined to the
shop, except one pane of glass which young Watson
broke up stairs.
Charles Jones, a brass-founder, was employed to
repair the brass-work which the mob destroyed at
Mr. Beckwitb's shop on the 2d of December. The
stall-board, where the shutters stand, was broken, and
part carried away—and some brass lattice-work in
the shop was also destroyed. His bill was 21. Hs.
Parker, a gun-maker, had looked over the
list of guns taken away and afterwards returned in a
damaged state. The articles were originally worth
5701. 15s.—they were now worth only 2651. I s. 6d.—
the difference being 3051. 14s. 6d. He conceived the
things taken away, and never restored, to be fairly
valued at ',E911 19s. 6d.

Cross-examined.--The articles returned appeared,
in many instances, to have been Used to smash the
windows; for the stocks were filled with particles of
glass. He first examined 55 articles, guns and pis-
tols, which were damaged, about a morith.after the
riot took place. At a subsequent time, he examined a
few more. The morning after the disturbance, he saw
some of the dalnaged articles in Mr. Beckwick's shop.
Thomas Mortimer, gun-maker, of Ludgate-hill,
had looked at the list of arms carried away, and con-
ceived the prices to be correct. He saw many of the,
damaged guns and pistols, and they appeared to have'
been used with great violence. The stocks of several
of them were scratched, as if by glass.
Samuel Nock, a gun-maker, had also examined the
list of guns and pistols taken from Mr. Beckwith's
shop, and believed the prices to be just. He saw the
damaged arms, which appeared as if they had been
used as weapons for breaking open doors or windows.
This was the case for the prosecution.
The Costsion-Szareanr, for the defendant, ar-
gued, that, to enable the plaintiff to recover, a spe-
cific felony, under the 12th of Geo. I. must be proved
to have been committed. By that statute it was a fe-
lony for any tumultuous assemblage "to demolish
or to begin to demolish, any dwelling-honse." Where
such an act was committed, the person injured had
his remedy by action, against any two of the Wahl.
tants of the hundred—and, if he obtained a verdict,
the damages were to be defrayed by the hundred.—
Two points were, therefore, to be considered in this
case, Ist, whether the plaintiff was entided to re-
cover at all, which he could not unless a felony as