Norwich, Friday, Aug. 13.
The Times, 1824-08-16T00:00:00

At A'i,d Pri,.t RThf,,,-,'t I pTn (U-TFF KARCVO. II'tis was an action of trespass and assault, brought ry the plain j tiff; a maiden lady, against the defendant, a master bricklayer. Soirme curious local squabbles were half developed in the course of the i case but much more was withheld than was allowed to be given in evidence. Mr. STORKs sboerdy stated the grounds of the action to the jury. ! In the ring of the present year it bad happcnedl that a man named herring, a jonrneyman baker, whtio rented a house from the defend. ant, was desirous of g-iing that house up. Herring-this being early in the month of February -wanted to quit his tenancy at the ersuinw Lady-day; Gidney said that he was a yearly tnanit, and that he should expect either six months' warning,or the rent paid to lichael- ma% * and the consequence had been, that Herring, to save his fine, had tnderie. his cottage (Mor the tenr fromLady-day to Michaeimas) to Miss Wassell. Now, whert it was that could have led Mlr. Gidney the defendant, to be dissatisfied with Mliss Wstsse- a3 a tenant,wba was likely every way to beeso much better a tenant thaLn Herring had been, he (lr. Storks) wvas at a loss to iicover; jo ut he had been, how%ever, dissauisfid mnost erievously, and his mode of expressn that dissatisfaction had led tao the present actios. He had tbough fit to go into this house of this, uninvidct, while the pladntiff s pini possessien of it, and bn order her instantly to quit, in terms of the most insolent descriptdon. On her refusing to do this, he had at tuallv aent for a constable caused her to be taken ip in the verl chair in wvhich shel sat., arliA sO c arried._bodily _out of doors into the street. H-i had, farther, coimranded her nephewY, wbo resided along wvith leer, to be conveyed out of their joint dwelling, in the same unceremonious and extraordinary mannerd and had ceed.Thded by throding forth her furni-ure after ler into the cpen road, the moat contucmelious eE:presmdone,Snd am3idst tbe jeers of the Muilare I )nce more, the rnotive of thir conduct on the defendant s part, he (the learned counsel) did not pretend eves to conjecture; but the in- sult wrhich had been offBered to this adv-toa mi entlewoman of educa-_ tion and comnpetent fortune-.was of the verv grossest chaacer. There wra'i a coant in the deelaretion for da mage done to property, hut that was a trifling consideration. The real complaint of Miss Was.sell wvas for the personal injury and affront she had received. The es- tent of that nejiury anud insult, the jurv, as men, couldt not butt feel antI both their incnaitsiuons and their duty wvould lead themt to give the plaintifl'heavy damaggs. lHannah Herring (the wifie of MAilss Wgassail's nlleiedletskOr)eFiid. " aMy hnaband is a jousneyrnan baker. M,e rented a cottageof MNr. Gidnev, the defendant. Before old Lazdy-dy last, we wantd to leave onr h.oase. Mlr. Gidneysaid we were yeasrly tenienta, and he should ex- pectsizmrtontlha'rent, orsix monthss notice. WTe then let the cottage9 fromn theLsady.day to the nexdIMichselmas, to MissWeseal tThiEcon. vhermsrniong letting hpemed a fortnight before the quarter. Ont temrigof Ladys- it, PMiss Wai.ssail tok posseestOii. She btought a eea.coddy along witht her to she house; I don't remnember if she brought ansy other furniture; w e weretEO lend her two chairs f-or the present. My husband dog ike garden fior ,Miss Wtsssell after see let the house to her. When we were goinJg away, M4r. (itdne- wanted his rentt we said we conid not pay that; belied thle tfl5en. tory of our goods taken, hut did not makre a distress. ~Before w!e quitted the housee, en the LaLdy-day, MIr. (jidney Sad Mtiss WSassail should not gtay there; 1 hleard him say, *'he would hav hereout, if he be toleoick her out.": Orems examined.-l-liss lWassell lived at unstanston before we let the house to her. 1-unutistoen s about two miles from Rinsley. Outr rent to MNr. Gidney wtas five guineas a-year; she w.E to a tsa use ul:neass fom Lady--day to islichaclsnas. Miss WFaaseu w as at our house on the nighs befbre the kaidy-dny. Skte 6 msyed op a night; sitting up in a chair. And next meraing syou moved your ficrakure ?- es; aUi bat one chlair. Whlat chair was fhsae .-The chair Miss Wassil csat 12i p.. Wshy did you not move i: .P-Bcauose Mliss *VasseUwOar i1 t still. I thinlk toy husband demanded te chair, bu;t 1Miss Was.U m:ould I '"anrge StOeri so as to be between ths~e h Oa,ilipr th, have youi not berts told by that lady, (pointing to the otheig tan L y a end Aiss Ninth nt b sun was Objected to, and the Judgc decided that it could not Seee put. 'The~ vriincss then identified a IoeM said to Isav ebeen written by thie Dslsbtily', Caled (as we tnok ft) Rivalry ; or fi_e Generatlfns,estl. ~Vt5olu- Ev~ery body said Miss Weasgel wrote thle book; and Mitss 3"assll hd givn iten zco y of it. hpMskrantea cpn-onstbe trove t e eedyV ugbsatoiyt chaproan,beclnstable,to'nearryout"the plainti. If he wanted astn,Sonthgate, the clerk of the parish, was to help hin'n~ 0Fahimzan did not want ieisistancce; he took Miss 1Vasme1l up, chair .rnd all, an'd carried her out. He aid, he mut "mnove" her. He 'at her down in the street; then he carried out the tea.caddy and 9craterih Thenhe carried out the nephew. AIr. acopr.~ubmitited that there waslno charge about the nephew. PtMr.. Coor said._that the nephew was part of the res gesta. eWas a great crow round the house on ther cHe. COOPa~SLsubrnitted that the crowd had nothing to do with RDLf suggested that the crowd was part of the sr'ediesa. A1r.R,obsxxso'y,r for the defendant, protested to tle jury, that ncittlVt1apon the la w of the case nor its merits had he the slightest tibst to their verdict. Ih, the firt place, that chattering witness .is. tH>;erring cou.ld have had no more right to let the defendant's irause to ~)in Was,eli, than he (the learne counsel) or The jury had to let it, ansd he would show by distinct evidence-that of her htxs- band himseldfenhat he (Ele-ring, the husband) had actually given it lap to she d-efendant. Amain, the real fact wasththiexlen aIdY i-ad Pot been 1mve e e ac. -s- that this excellent hadyhad ot ben moved" by Mr. Gidney st order at all, the VnOving bad been done, not by the defendant, but at the re Ucst of aierring;himtelf whose haii she had Incumbered all night, and idr` way thcorscand) insisted on ?cUpYing in the morning: and whito the merits of the pasnts turnec out, what wrotld the jury '&aYto he eris ofthecas.? erewas a landlotds hampered enough,as most hou;e lanidlords gen,erally were,tsogetlhis owvn He had hla one bad tenant already ( Mr. Herrin ), and found himself in a fair way to get a second, who would' be worse. Herring house anda the rent his ' wife contrived to underlet the and oant of hsrhoGe ineywas. tobechoused out of his arrears, bea,t fer amoment to to the br4aln. Why, would the jury bienaor ftiraraoenl's t told that thiswans a bonajlde transac- " a genrleuvon,nof tducavth3islady-forshe called heraelfalady_ a ber senses, what o tkni and competent fortune"-if *he was pinler sen of n ) Ortf On act was it towards hiring and taking Pm the cottage aO *ouse r her to be Sitting up all night in a chair, ing his rentr and t?'a eynian baker, who was quitting without pay. keeing histnt -' a"ndaterwards. to he squabbling with his wife, and ein On h of his chairs against his will, and insist upon staying ITs the hodi se._for what fiair reason could all this be done ?-amidst Vi n and dustI, and bustle, attendant upon such an operation as r hy ?Y'O could the jury doubt but that. this lady had known that she was to be opposed ?-rhat she had wilfully ~A 'ossssio ofhis hiouse by stealth-knowing that the owner woulgd not voluntarily be content to give it her ? -Was this the way b thcgh people ot' "competent fortune' came to a new dwelling? itha ta-cadly and two cotfee-cups, and without any bed? What tady.except one whoj sought for an opportunitv to squabble and r an act:on.what lady but would ratlier have quitted, even to her own wrong, the house and chair which she had usurped, than have b ubrAiti to he carried oat,-and this lady 'nolv came to talk of beig nsulted forsooth !-than have submitted to be carried Put by tlihbands of a common constable ? Upon the law of the se, as tt stood, Mhe(r. Robinson) entertained no doubt that he was rntitlcd to a verdict. It was evident that the plaintiffbad (for eas sinto which he was prevented from going) obtained possession of this house by a trick; and by a trick which, he believetl, the law * would not bear her out in. In ca-e, however, by any chance, a verdict should, of necessity, pass against the defendant, the Jury would remernber the circumstances in wlich he had been placed They would remember that he liad used no violence more than was absolutely necessary to the rpcovery of his own ; and would consult the real justice of th c ase by giving the plaintifF one farthing 'dainafes. Philip Herring was then called, (the husband of the plaintiff's first witness); but he disappointed the expectations of the 'defendart's learned counsel as to his evidence. He admitted hat he had given up possession of the house to the defendant 'o he mning of Lady-day: but added, that he had IeL a fortnignt before. He had gone to fetch the con- c e, t. pman, to "move" Miss Wassell; but AIr. Gidney had Ccosssexmrnined.-Defendant had said, within thelast three weeks, -thie would give witness's wife 101., irshe would not swear against him at the trial. ChXrtnan, the constable, saitl, that it was he who had "' moved" ,Miss Vassel . lie had done it at the desire of Herring. Cross.exaunned.1lHerring had come to his house, to say that " he must comne and take away ;Miss M,'acsell." On getting to the house (Herring's), he had found Alr. Gidney there; and illr. Gidney liad deired im to do his duty. Mr-. SToasus, in replv, insisted that the defendant's witnesses bliad proved the plaintiff`s case. Herring had only carried (as he him- ,Rdf declared) MIr. Qidney's measage to Chapman, the constable. The LOnD C'riE F BA RON said,that the action vas twofold-first, atresrassupon the plaintiff's house; and second, for an assault committed upon her persont; and, unless the jury disbelieved all the witnesses in the case, there could be very little doubt that she was, 'upon both points, entitled to a verdict. What was the reaaon why zuch a lady had chosen to come in the way that she had done into the house of the witness Herring ; or whv the defendant sbould have so decidedly refused to havea lady, evide;tmiv capable of paying him, foratenant-thesewere circumstances as towhichhetLhe Lord Chiet Baron) had no knowledge; and if the jury had any privateknowleAlge of the causes, it was their dtsty to dismxiss it from their minds. There could& be twdbubt, bowever, that at one tinme, the house in dispute had been let to Aliss Wassell; and after so letting it, Herring could not revoke his act, nor could the defendant avail himselfof any such 3rcvocation. The Jury, after considering for a few moments, returneda verdict for the plaintiff, with one shilling damages. Mis NV"assell is a lady about forty; tall, thin, and inclined to look rther fretful. She was very gaily dressed, in whiteand pink; andsat at court during the whole of the trial. NORWICH, FRIDAY, AuIG. 13. I WA.SSELL V. GrDNEY. Di