The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-12-02 00:00:00

■

C•fl'

T O 1 KIXOIS BENCH, SATURDAY, Nor. 30.

CRATES LEICIII.
MAitRYATT stated that the plaintiff In this egge
was formerly a hop-factor of considerable eminence
in
the borough, though be had recently, by the changes
• in the tittles, had the misfortune to be a bankrupt. The
04endant was an Attoreey, and bad formerly been em-
pl;yed be Mr. Graves: but some disagreement having
occurred between them, Mr. LAIL h,in a spirit of revenge,
ark‘ted Air: Braves in the public street, and amongst
those tra.eirsmen.and neighbours with whom he was in
the habit of associating , and dealing. Mr. Bravo,
turning the defendant on a subsequent day in the street,
I emonstrateti with him on this uncourteoes proceeding,
when 'Mr; Leigh, without ceremonv, struck him a via-
lent Wow, and knocked his bat off. For this gross as-
'mitt the plaintiff now sought to reccrer compensation
by the present action.
Mr. Mills. bop-factor in the Borough, stated, that in
November last he was standing doer talking to
the eefenslant, when M r. 0 came up, and addressing
. himself to Mr. Leigh said," you're a paltry scoundrel ;"
and`Mr. Leigh immediately struck him a blow on the
shotilder, and his bat fell off. Mr. Or eeee said, „That
is' all I wanted; words are not actionable, but blows
are."
'Cross-examined.—Mr. Leigh had his arm in a sling
at this time ; nothing further passed.
M: Scalawag said a few words on the part of the
Defendant; who, be contended, had only done what
. •
any otter man would have dune under such circum-
• •!.' • • stances.
.• : • •The Cuter JCSTICE observed the plaintiff was right
in his law ; the blow was actionable, and he was enti-
• ' tl-d to a verdict. The defendant was an Attorney, laud
must have known that. It was for the jury to estimate
11. this dainages. A verdict for plaintiff—Damages, One

COO OF COMMON PLEAS, SATCZDAT, Nov. 30.
*ase
, . . , -
se ,• BURFORD V. SCALES.
: Rs ID action for an assault. The parties are
• .
the
huntplaintiff dealing in beef and mutton by re-
tAli;tlM slefinsiant adding to his retail business the
nutreosteusive one of wholesale in Whitechapel. As is
r.yi onfrequently among persons of their calling, some
dtripste arose between them which ended in a row, and
out nf,thatrote came the present action.
-Pr, tturford, the plaintirs case was, that be was inof-
fejasive.kv .speaking to the defendant, when the latter
struck.hint. several blow, and knocked him down. To
pt owe thithlte called nofewer than half a dozen witnesses,
al; °Litho* positively averred thatihe defendant was the
unprovoked assailant.
.Thotiefendant met this case by bringing two wit-
ressea who as positively swore, that he had quietly asked
tics pl.4ntiff for n sum of money which:was due from the
plaintiff; to which, as they alleged, the plaintiff relt's:,
by d-ing his eves, and threatening to break ,:..... Oritige
ci his nose; and in fact, that, to stsise action to the
t‘ ord. ile did attempt to let' I:!..;settt hands ups's:, and do
tw,.issus injury to, that 1:,..ef0l organ of the defendant ; to
Fervent which, the id fendaet was obliged to knock him
I..twit. These ;nn witnessss were-,quite sure that the
plaintiff Wa:. the first assailant.
The slirty, after hearing the evidence on both sides,
avd 4r.Serge.tnt Phut. for the plaintiff, and hir. Ser.
geint Vat:Guam for the defendant, thought the weight
of evidence against 31r. Scales, and gave a verdict ac-
c,ndingly. Damages for the plaintiff 501. and COOL
--.110.---

ARCHES COURT, N0v.30.
SietTBl, PORSERLT 301)624, V. BLITHE.
This case was originally a suit of nullity of marriageby
reason of want of legal consent, promoted in the Con-
sistm7 Court of London by Samuel Blythe, the natural
and I twin! father of Frederic Augustus Blythe. a laiset,
trails? Sarah Soden, falsely called Blythe. The leafs-
ed J /dee of the Court below-on the tSO of June-last,
riot 'pawed the said marriagreerli and void ' • and Dr.
Millington, who was of evened for the wife, i MOW
1:
drat y asserted an appeal, with a view to any benefit
that might be taken nailer the provision of the then
i ph rig new Marriage Act. Subsequent to the paving
ler re it sentence, and on the 2.2nd of July last, the new
Adarilage Art received the Royal assent. The appeal
a rats I edged in this Court and duly prosecuted. tin the
1 isat Ulf Mrs. Blythe, an allegation was now given in,
:tear' ii ng the new Marriage Act, and certain facts, which
. Dr: i sessbington contended, brongbt the case so within
%the r irovisierni of the Act, as to found his prayer that
t freer entenceo.of the Court below might be reversed. The
*leg pion in questioa consisted of two articles only:—
the t fret pleading the new Marriage Act; and the other
Viet- IF. A. Blythe and his wife Sarah did continue to
live ' ktgether till the commencement of the cause in the
bite &dory Court; and had only suspended their co-
beti titian in consequence of these proceeding.; and
I Cher. fort. that Mrs. Blythe was entitled to have the sen-
We rev erred on the authority of the 2d clause (3 (leo.
IV.• a 7frl : which is in these words—" And be it further
Ms tied , OW in all cases of marriage had and solemn-
er. by li cease before the passing of this art, without
ans such consent as is required by so much of the said
sty, die is Is bereinbefore recited, and where the parties
stint) have continued to livotogether as husband and wife
till the death of one of them, or till the passing of this
Vet t or shall only have discontinued their cohabitation
forth* perjure of or during the pending of any proceed.
lege tont:bier the validity of suet marriage; such war.
oitage, if not otherwise invalid, shall be deemed to be
goudientd. valid to all intents and purposes whatsoever."
• Dt. SWilltilr and Dr. JtNNER argued against the ad-
mission of this allegation, contending that the pretended
mstriags in this case haviug been declared 'unit and
void by a competent tritim', under the then eziring
law, could not now be reversed by the superior *Part.
/N n protest wee ever ertered, nor could any h
ues ever
loom sustained, against the jurisdiction in qtion,
wattling the proceedings; and consequently, though
lit it jurisdiction might be said to have been suspended
hy reason of the appeal, so far as to take away train it
any power of enforcing its sentence previously
14 the result of the appeal being publahed, the
wore fact of appeal could not take away the jurisdiction.
As to the terms of clause 2, they evidently applied not
to the present ease, which was not one contemplated by
the frame's of the act; for where of two parties one
was to be hound by the statute, and the other to take a
benefit tinder it, it surely could not have been the inten.
tion of the legislature to confer that benefit on the party
which had acted "in Ji•audem legis," as the law stood'
at the time. The learned Counsel ocl:witted that this
allegation ought not to he admitted to proof.
De. LCutfi NG rim felt that it was not necetsary for him
to ertre that there were not many anomalies in the act :
hut this Court, and all the other Courts, mull of course
endeavour to arrive as nearly as p.ossiLle at the true in-
thnt and ;rennin.: of the legislature. Now lie con-
tended that the ohligution contained in the :.rand clause
was tueast by the legislature to conclude those who, at
the *me of passing the act, were in a coarse of liti-
gallon in suths like the present. A btroiig measure this,
sindouhredly ; hut that it was adopted with the view 0;
' fepressinx the nits which were every day occurring
tinder OW old marriage law (0 lieorg, 11., r. 33) the
preamble of the art sufficiently 'heard ; fur afs,r reeit-
ing the objects and enactments of the 26:11 of tieutge
I 1., it prectmeled thus—•' And• wh great evils and
. 1-jtssir. hare arisen from such provisions, for remedy
hereof b-it et:meted, &e." This was, therefore, In
respect a remedial statute, expressly casting a mint;
iiik sm the old law. The learned counsel concealed his an-
Runes% by contending that his party was tatitied es tiro
. .

11l