The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-08-02 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCBLLOR'S COURT—Pasmat.

bORD BIRO,/ O. DUGDYILS.
Ik. WARRIPIRLD obtained as letwilea is &Wawa&
to restrain the defendant frown pub kiting thee`Sixth, Sel
tenth, and Eighth Cantos of Den Aura t. or a statesient
that his Honour had acquiesced its et WWI* applies-1
tion with respect to the same book in the case ef Ildwith‘fl
defendant. • •

in•DaT • StriD OrREWS 6. PA LUKR kND OTailti•
Mr. Wseturritio moved fur an 414114.110 n to teitriiinl
the defendants from 'saint the name of the Netiettel
nevelent institution. The plaintiffs were the Trustees
of the Natoli Insurance Benefit institution, the name or
'which had formerly been the National Denrrolent lend.;
(union, and of whirls the defendants had formerly been'
trustees. When they were dismissed from their 450,1
the name of the imtitition bad been changed, and they!
had formed Reuther ia•fitution adopting the former,
name. The 'Mutual Insurance Dena% institution eon-
sisted of about 4,000 members, apd as the enbscribers
to the old institution- might be deceleed by this revised
name, the plaintiffs made the present application to re-
strain them from using it. The object of the institution
was to support its old infirm inemberiby mutual contri-
buttons.
The VICI-Cii.V4CILLLOR granted' the injunction.

NORFOLK CIRCUI r, NoßArica, JILT 31.
—goo—
IPIAMPRO P. PRATT ANII, 0711118:

This was an action of trespass.
Mr. Srogsfs stated, that the defendants in tisk ease,
Isere well aware of the difficulty of their situation, When
they bad brought together in the bee, a fall Spatial
Jury of the most respectable men, of the inspectable
county of Norfolk. H. had nu other motive iu remind•
log the Jury, that this cause was tried before, except to
.eis peen, his own satisfaction, that the case waste be fully
investigated, and on the part of his client, he was equally
ratisfiett the result would be favourable to hies. The
plaintiff, Mr. Fleming, was a wine merchant in Yar-
mouth. He did not know that be kept a gio shop. as his
Learned Friend would again, *she did on the former oe.
asion, contend. The circumstances, oat of which the.
cause of action grew, were shortly these.. A young
lady named Simonds, was left an orphan at an: earlyi
age. She was ebusinto the plaintiff. Was aniline! to
a fortune of between 3 and 40001. sad was early placed
at thh iespectable school of bliss Reeves, if Yarmouth,
by her guardians, MI airs. Worship and Borret. She
wait allowed, of course, to visit her relations, and
the plaintiff among the rest, who althongls not se rich
as she, yet were equally respectable. On the Christmas
of last veer, her guardians took her from thieschool,
end placed berwitb a Mrs. Dade. This was on the 13th
Felt. A party of her relations was to be oo the day
following at the plaintiff's, her cousin. She was there
with the consent of her guardians. While spending the
evening happily with a large and respectable patty of
her relatioss, the defendant* entered the house, and was
guilty of the trespass charged in the declaration.
-T he three defendants, Pratt, Coble, and Shrievekstole
into the house without any invitation, and acted in the
trost insulting and violent manner, as the evidence
would disclose. There happened to be a gentleman from
London of the party, a respectable attorney, who; remota-
strafing with the defendants, was insulted and assaulted
by them. They said they came on the part of the
guardians, to demand the young lady. These defendants
were police officers, who, of course, were to be indemni-
tied in this whin, by Mr. Worship and Mr. Borret, un-
der whose authority tbeyacted. The damages the Jury
would give, were not to he proportioned to the injury
done by the defendants. hut to the insult they offered. by
eir violent conduct in the plaintiff's house. They catue
Where they were not invited, came at an improperticae,
inducted in a most improper manner, and ma e the
worst use, as the Jury would learn from the witnesses, of
th e authority which their employers cave them. He oas
sure his client was entitled to-a verdict, but he required
only moderate damages.
Lucy Hant sworn.-1 was at Mr. Fleming's, on the
14;h of Janney laic, in King-street, Yarcoduth ;. there
is a front and back door. There were about twenty in
all, at the party. Miss Simonds was there. I saw the
three defendant:, Pratt, Coble, and Shrieves, rushing
towards the parlour door, hut stopped by a daughter
of Mr. Libhis. Mr. Bonstield, a gentleman of the
party, then came ioto.the kitchen, to them. They did
nut krotik at the dour, Mr. Coble looking over Pratt's
s' adders. at the rarlour door, said insultingly, Very
rke ladies, very nicely ti d; looking to oe side-
blard, on which supper was laid, he said, in ajtering
M snrer, Very nice tarts, very nice eating.

Cross-examined—Witness said, I was there as char-
wooaaa. Mr. Fleming kept no servants. He has lived
shout two years in this house. lie kept the Queen's
If!.id before ; that was a common pnblic.bouse. h lire
a ith a person named West, in Half moon-row. I lived
there seven years. The defendants rushe I to the par-
-1 hnr door. .1 do tot recollect I ever raid they shut the
'Nor after them. Mrs. Slonntjoir •stopped them. The
parlour is sepsrated from tl,e kitchen, by a glass door.
Pratt, before he rushed to the parlour door, asked for
Mr Libh;s. Mrs. Mountjoy held the parlour door
w:th one hind, and held Pratt off with the other; the
oth r two stood in the kitchen.
Mr. lionsfield sworn-1 am a solicitor and tiepin Lon-
don. at Chatlism Place. I ant Attorney in this cause. I
was in Yarmouth on the 14th of January. I was in Mr.
Fleming's parlour when the defendants entered the
kitchen. I went out and asked for their authority for
entering the house. They asked for Mr. Libbis, for
whom they said they bad a letter. I called him out.—
They gave the letter. I said the letter was no authority
for entering Mr. Fleming's !tense. They produced ano
tb 1' parr signed by Miss Simonds!, gnardiuns. I told
them that was no authority, and I wouldedvise Mr. Fle-
ming to bring an action against the guardians for sign.
leg it. I out the paper into my pocket fur that purpose.
Pratt and Coble seized me by the collar, an-I after a strag-
gle wrested it from we. I gave them may card and asked
their names, which they gave. I told them they were
committing a very illegal act, and I advised them to quit
the plaintiff's house in a moment. Coble, in an insulting
mintier, said " I remember when I was at school sixty
um:ciente made a second, a moment is gone already,"—
T.,en, said I, " I require you to quit the plaintiff's
liouse immediately, or an action of trespass will be
bronght against you (I forgot to state that the lirst thing
1 asked them was, had they a habeas corpus?") Thee
said they should not go without the young lady. I told
them the young lady was in the house, but she would not
k given t.pou that auchority,hist would betaken (oars.
Da.le's the morning following at 10 o'clock, the hour ap-
pointed. After they were half an hour in the house they
.sent to Mr. Woiship to know how they were to act
Stalest. went, 1 having consented; Its returned in too
minutes and demanded the young lady. isaid she shoald
not he given up to them. They went away, after be.
ing in the house about three quarters of as hour.—
Their conduct was very insulting. They said to me,
" come, my good fellow, what are your doing hem?"
Said f, "do not good fellow me; lb duel woos to be
good followed by such as you." I and her tivo.cousins
saw Miss Simonds home to Mrs. Dade's that naming. It
was a respectable faintly piety. I ass a married ossa and
Lave a family.
Croraexamined.—l had no melons actioidetassawith
the plaintiff, nor with others I saw there. Ido net know
the plaintiff's habits of life. The guardian uilghchave
b. to exrcted drat night for the lady. Nd set of tiolf hes
was end towards ale bat what his dscessary to get tie

~~;: --

tpaPer from etiy peseediion. I *knew kr. Mesh!? • and
MY Boiret were the WO guardians: I 'heard, ih the
Mrelate of tbirlitilitlr, that Miss Simonds was placed
eer gitarilans at Mts. Dude's, end that she refused to
Miler ribst night to Mr. Vlttning's.
John Libbis sivorol live. on my propee*.iiill. am
parried to. Miss Simonds's aunt. I called for her between
die ind six. o'clock on the evening in question. I had •
permission to. do so. • Mrs, Dade refused to let her go, as
IMr. Worship had given orders she should not be allowed
to visit any of betrelations. Ido not kiwi pvbe took
ber to. Mr.. Fleming's. I found her there when I wedt.iii
the evening. She was about seventeen years old. I
saw'the defindaots that night rush up to filc..Fleming's
.parlour door, and act ae described by the former witness.
Miss Siinonds often visited Sr. Fleming, who was for-
• merly an offiner is the hairy. .
Cross-examined-1 was smoking erben.the defeedents
UMW up to the parfoui door. 1 had Mm. Daders permit-
sioo is the morning to call for Miss Simonds, but she re-
feeed her in the eveisiog. I never told her she acted un-
like a ge.atiewomas in. refusing me. 1 heard Mrs. Dade
was a clergyman's widow. I- don't know that she had
grown daughters.
Miss Heaves sworn—Cheep a boarding school at Yee-
month. Miss Simonds was ten years at my house.
• was at this party the evening In question. I heard a very
great bustle.
Cross-examined.--I felt extremely hart that Miss Si-
monds was removed from me, I had then two young Lk.
sliesbeyond her ago; I heard of Mrs. Dade. and that
she bad two growerdliaghters. I know nothing of their
accomplishments. Miss Simonds visited the plaintiff,
with the permission of her guardian, Mr. Worship, but
when Mr. Fleming took the tavern in the market, tasked
Mr. Worship, waeshe to go there; he said he did not
mind her going, as be had" no objection but to the situa-
tion. To his question, I answered, invitations came
about twice in a half-year. He said as they did not
come oftener, he felt a delicacy in preventing her going.
He afterwards left the Half-Moon tavern, and went to
' the Queen's Head public-house. He is now a wine-mer-
chant and does not retail any thing. The guardians ne•
ver, to the best of my recollection, refused her leave to
go to that house. On the 13th of January, Mr, Worship,
Mr. liorret, and Mr. Libbis came to me, and the plain.
till who was there, expressed a wish that Miss Simonds
would drink tea with him that evening, Mr. Worship
absolutely refused. Lie never to my knowledge refused
before.

This was the case be the.plaintiff.
Mr. Rocs% for the defendants said, this action was no
doubt in reality an action against Mr. Worship and Mr.
Barret, fur he did not think they would have acted cre-
ditably to themselves, if they did not iudetnuify the defen•
daunt, who acted under their authority. He appealed to
the Jury whether those gentlemen, who were placed in
the delicate aitsation of guardians to this young
could have acted otherwise than they did. Miss Simonds
was then 15 years of age, and bad acquired the solid pars
of a lady's education. They properly placed her in the
house of Mts. Dade, who was a respectable widow of a
clergyman, and whose accomplished daughters might be
companions io her amusements, and examples for her
imitation. From Miss Reeves, who was certainly much
affected by the removal of Miss Simonds from her house,
the Jury had it in evi.leoce that die guardians positively
refused on the 13th to allow Mio; Simonds to ga to the
plaintiff's on the 14th. Mr. Libbis aware of that, went to
Mrs. Dade's in the morning of the 14th, and rota promise
that she would allow the young lady to go to Mr. Flour
ing's that evening, but having learned Mr. Worship's de-
termination in the course of the day, she said.in the eve-
ning, when Mr. Libbis went for her, that she could not
allow her to go. The young lady went, however,. and
the Jury could not doubt but Mr. llousfield, who said
he was down on business with the plaintitf•'s brother. was
in the house of the plaintiff in expectation that the guar-
dians would send to demand the lady. His first question,
whether they had a Habeas Corpus, proved they were
prepared fur the visit. It did little credit to that Gen-
Gelman to attempt to detain front the defendants the an-
thority under which they acted, and by which they might
afterwards protect themselves in an action. They used
so more violence towards•hiw than was necessary to get
back that paper. This case differed from o'her cases of
trespass, for the plaintiff here was liable to an action
under the statute of one of the Charles's, for seducing
the ward of thoie guardians. If a justification was en-
tered on the record, then he would contend that he w•as
entitled to a verdict; but the defendants having pleaded
Not Guilty, a verdict should be given to the plaintiff;
but he hoped the Jury would see that. the least possible
damages would satisfy the justice of the case. He
trusted they would show their indignation at this petti-
fogging attempt at an action, the result of which could
be useful to none but the Attorney who advised it.
The Jury, having beard his Lordship's charge, and
having consulted together a few minutes, said they would
find a verdict for the plaintiff, gi►ing him the smallest,
possible damages, s f that both parties would have to pay
their own costs. A verdict was therefore recorded for
the plaintiff—Damages One Farthing.