The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-27 00:00:00

♦LLEN V. AVER AND ANOTHER.

This was an action on the 57 lien. 111. c. 19, against
the defendants, two inhabitants of the hundred to reco-
ver a compensation in damages for the destruction of a
building called the hustings, destroyed by a riotous as-
setnbly, at the last election far Lynn, in Norfolk. The
action was brought by the Mayne of that borough, who
was declared as owner of the hustings. At the trial b.-
fire Mr. Baron Harrow. at the last assizes for the county
of Norfolk, it appeared in evidence, that at the last elec-
tion for Lynn, the candidates agreed amongst themselves
to pay for the bustingarreeted to take the poll. After
they were erected, a riot took place in the town, and
they were injured by the crank and the plaintiff was pat
to considerable expense in putting them into a state of
repair. To recover this expense the present action was
brought. At the trial two objections were taken to the
p'aintiff's right to recover; first. that hustings were not
a building within the meaning of the statute; and se-
cond, that the plaintiff could not he ecnsidereti as the
owner of the hostines, and consequently cou'd not be
damnified by the alleged injury. The Learned Baron
saved both points, and the plaintiff had a verdict, with
liberty to move to enter a nonsuit. Last term Mr.
Henry Cooper moved accordingly, and obtained a rule
Nisi for that purpose.
Mr. STORKS and Mr. WEST now showed cause, atrl
met:ivied, first, that as the words of the statute were,
"any buildang hatecer," the hustings, in this case,
which were fixed on the ground, came within the gene-
ral definition; and sword. that they must, for the pur-
pose of this action, be considered as the property of the
Mayor. who, being returning officer, was by implica-
tion honed t) provide the necessary means of taking
the poll at a contested election.
Mr. COOPER, in support of the rule, was not heard.
The Coitar were clearly of opinion that the Mayor
could not he considered as the owner of the hustings,
they baying been provided at the expense of the can-
dilates ; and without giving any decisive opinion upon
the second question, made the rule absolute for entering
a nonsuit.

lIUGHES C. SAVOTIY..

This was an action brought by the pliiintiff, who formerly
wai a soldier in the Guards, to rec.rver compensation in
damages for an assault alleged to have been committed by
the defendant, who Is an eminent ehemist refilling in Bond-
street. The damages were laid at frOUI. From the state-
ment of the Learned Counsel, Mr. Common B,rgealit. it ap-
peared that the assauit was committed at West Monkey,
where the defendant has a country-house, which the
pla'ntiff was hired to take care of. After evidence,
had been adduced on both sides, Mr. Phillip sev.
at considerable length, contended, that the impropriety
of the plaintiff's conduct in leaving unprotected plate and
other valuables which were in the house, and which he
was hound to take care of, and his insolence to the de-
fendant on his return 110111 e at a late hour of the night,
j,is.ified the defendant in what he had done. He trust-
ed the Jun• would not, by their verdict, hold out to ser-
vants that insolence, disobedience, and negl..t towards
their masters, would be rewarded with lredvy damages.
His Lordship summed itp,.and the Jury having retired
for an ilium found a verdict for the plaintiff—Manages,
One Shilling.

The Conn of King's Bench has decided that the fur-
niture at Blenheim House in as vi.st-d in the trusters under
tl•c i►alce of Marlborough's settlement, and could not le-
rAlly be &strained for assessed taxes, of ivhielt two years
~re now due.

PREROGATIVE