Chelmsford, Tuesday, Marc...
The Times, 1824-03-11T00:00:00

,LJ i-waA6 ioic4}1e29th oDr lizibe4h,sgaiest thede'endant, ,ate hSh2sct o ? fhstLotunmy, to tecover treble damages for t5u Th~e-age 'ctaO,his. -~xeccidon haxing been taken out against thle ,~lj sn of anerehsditoacf tP a : e flf Rt'tl ja wlrit was delivered to George Not- ge, s4 bV4-of the 4&f ndant, '0 execqte. The officer who wa; oLso an.xetjonper, vitlu the consent of.bhe plaintitf ,sod the ef- fects; and o-Sf zc pro,eeds4pducted the .Sheriff's poundagetvwo ,gu. eh for.t e levy, an, one guinea for makingM an inventery of the go-d hede?ii charges as an auctioneer. The question was, whet t r ep officer was Justified in deducting any thing more than t'Ce Slterifs poendaxe,accordiag to the statutes 29 Eliz. and 48 Geo.1IL r. Justice BEST w3as of opinion, that the officer coald not charge orethai the poundage. bu~t said he would reserve the consideration of he uesio fo th Cortabove. Ilia; Lordship strongly repro.. bated the practi onfor tfhe ?Shteiff?'s officers actingc as actioneers. The jury7 under his L,ordship's direction, found their verdict for the plainti lTIEaasages 31. 4s. fed. SYpecie Juries. SAYERS V. TOwER, ESQ. This was an action ot' assault and battery._The defendant plead- 1 ed "1not guilter." i The plaintt'f was a master carpenter, liying at Romrnord, and the defendant a captain in th- royal navy, residing at Kelvedon Hatch.' On the 15th of November last, the plaintiff, in conmpany with Mr. Tarling, a corn-dealer, of Rocnford, who is qtualified to kil! game, and a fartner's son, name(d Price, went to shoot in the preserves of the late MIr. Fane, of Kelvedon Hatch, and member of Parliament for Oxford. iMr. Fane's house wxs in the occupation I of the defendant's mother anti the defendant himself was on a visit to the latter. The plaintiff carried the game-bai, and his' companions had guns, and five or six sporting dogs. ilhilst thevy -rere sportin. M,r. Fane's keeper ca.ne up, and warned thete tbat they ~ere trespassing, and desired themn to leave the grounds. The 'plaintiff and his companions were doubtful of the keeper's autho- rity, arn, went on shooting: upon whichi the 1;ceper went for hiq deputation, and brought the defendant along with him. According to the testimony of Tarling and Price, the defarniant irnmediatcly j fell upon the plaintiff with a hesigestake, knocked himr clown, and struck him several blows whilst -in the ground. The plaintiff kept hold of the game-bag, and the defendant struck himn rCDeatedly on the wrist to makc him let it go. Under these circumista:ces the action was broughlt. On the part of the defendant, the gamekeeper was called, w ho expres:ly centradicted the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses. He swore that the plaintiff' conducted himself with great violence, and offered to fixht the defendant. The only blow struck was a slight rap on the plaintiff's knuckles with a small walking stick, to make him letgo the game-bag. The plaintiff was certainly not knocked down. The plaintiff and his companions had refused to give their names, and tlhei it was that the defendant attempted to take the game-bag from the plaintiff: Alr. JUStiCe BEST left It to the jury to determine the credit of the plaintiff's witnesses, contrasted with: dle evidence of tie gnamekeep- er. tudeubtedjv the plaintiff w.as entitled to credit. If theplain-i tiff were believed, no damages the jury could give would be exces- sive, tender all the circumstances of the case hut if thev believed the story of the acnekecper wvas true, the smallest damages would satisfy the Justice of the case.! T'hey found their verdict for te plaintiff-Damages, one farthing. SL5A V. OENT. This was an action of assault and battery, and for breaking the plaintiff's collar-bone. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff, being his servantl, had misconducted himsel, and disobeyed his lawfuil commands, where. upon lie pushed hinn out of the house, uising no more violence than was necessary. The defenilant was a gentleman of fortune, litving at Steeple Bum. stea4, in whose service the plaintiff, at the time of the transaction I in question, was butler and footman. An altercation takinig place I in censeouence of the plaintiff having disobeyed the defendant's or- ders, thelatter struck the former violentlT, acid in the result one of his collar-bones was broken. The plaintift had incurred an expense of 'OM. in getting himself cured. Witnesses were called for the defendant, whose evideicie showed that thie plaintiff had conducted himself with great insolence, and that mutual violence took place. The Jury, under the learned Judge's directions, found their ver. dict for the aefendant. ! CIMMAFORD. Tttr.nkv ftf-s- a -,A 7_ - Crvrt.SlDr.-IkTT,.jj qr?V V - . - -