Northampton, Monday, July...
The Times, 1824-07-29T00:00:00

The Commission was opened thi8 day by Mr. Justice HOLROYD alone, Chief Justice BEST having been detained in towra by the press of business in the Common Pleas. XISY PRIUS COURT. WOODIN V. HAMBER AND OTHERS. This was an action on the case against the defendants for a tres. pass, committed by them in malidously and illegallv entering and searching the plainitiff's house for his person, when they knew him to beabsent. The pleadings were opened by 7Ur. READER, and Mr. CLARE, stated the Case to the 3ur. Ele 0 ed st aS one calling for serious damages against the defendants. Ile described the person on whose belf the action was brought as a grocer and; druggist, residing in Toweester, in this coun- ty. This person had associated with him in business a rnan of the name of Blencoe, from whom thc jury would hear the particalars of the verv wanton and unaccountable aggression which had been made upon his (lir. Clarke's) client's property and character. It would be seen that, upon a certain day, two of the defendants entered AMr. *Voodin's house, and witiout producing any sort of warrant what. ever, although they were pressed so to do, proceeded in a violent mnanner to rummage and search every prrt of it. Mrs. Wvoodin did not happen to be present when they first entered, but upon her understanding that they were entering a room on the upper story in which was deposited a considerable quantity of gunpowder, witi a lighted candle. she became a prey to the most poignant anx-iety. After staying a considerable time in the house, and indulging to tne full extent, as may be supposed, their malice or their cariosity, they thought properto depart: but neitherthennor since had any expla- nation been offbret to palliate so zress an outrage uPOn the q6tit and character of the plaintiff's family. It ws upon these grounds that he came t6 seek reparattan at the hands of a jury of his countrymen. The intrusion of the men would be proved beyond a doubt, and, as every Englishman's house was his castle, it would be for the jury to say what compensation they would award in a case in which that sacred asylum had been so grossly violated. Timothy Blencoe said he was the plaintiff's partner. The house was in the High-street of Toweeater. Witness then described the trespass, as stated in the opening speech. The door, he said, was shut when the defendants entered. - They inquired for Mr. Woodin. but were answered by witness that he was not at home. They de- clared, however, that they would search the hotse. A female ser- vant attended them with a light. After remmining up stairs a con- siderable time, they returned, and were met by Mrs. Woodin, w>*o demanded by what authority they bad made the search, and lham- ber produceAl a paper, which, however, was not read. The men had come down from London, and nobody knew any thing of them. The witness underwent a long cross-examunation by M1r. Sergeant ADDABIS in which he reltictantly admitted that he was aware of one of the deiendants being a messenFer uneer the Commissioners of Bankrupt, who was seeking Woodin as a witness in a bankruptcy case, he having received a subpoma, and a viatinum of 31., which he returned, and was therefore in contenmpt. ie admitted also, that Woodin himself had told him he was aware of the nature of the de- fendants' visit, and had therefore kept out of the way, and, in fact, absented himself from his house for three months afterwards. He also said, though incidentally, that Mirs. Woodin said to the de- fendants-" You may go over the house, but it is all In vain, for you won't find him there." On subsequent re-examination, and in answer to a question to the Court. the witness positively declared that the words spoken by the plaintiff's wife, which might be interpreted into a constructive waver of the trespass, were not addressed to the defendants until they,were returning from searching the house. Bull, one of the defendants, was a constable. A female servant of the name of Woodin, a cousin of the plain_ tiff's, corroborated the blst witness as to the fict of the searching of thehouse,tlrough whichsthe accompanied thear with alightedcandle. This was the plaintiff's case. Mir. Sergeant ADDADrs contended before the learned Judge, that the case could not go to the Jury, as the cross-examination of the plaintiff 's witnesses had put hi out of Court. There wan a com- polete waver of the trespass, by the wife telling the defendant, that he might *-go over the house if he pleased, but that he was sure not Mr. CLARtgE.-'" Yes, but that was after he had been o. er the hiouse." Mr. Justice HOLROYD thought that a trespass had certainly been committed, and enough was shown to put the defendants upon their proof of justification. Mr. Sergeant ADDAreS then addressed the Juryfor the de- fence, whicih he rested entitely upon the discredit of the witnesm Blencoe. It was quite cler, he said, that the licence given by Mrs. Woodin to the detendants was antecedent, not subsequent, to ther going up stairs; and that the change of time was corruptly imained to suit the purposes of this action. Of what use woald itnave been, if, after the defendants had already searched the house, the plaintiff's wife should sat o them " Go now andsearch ?' No witnesses were called. MIr. Justice HoL.toYD charged the Jury, that the defendants were, in the abstrat, right in searching after a witness who was in contempt for not obeying the warrant of the Commissioners of Bankrupt, who certainly had the power, bv act of Parlarment, of compelling the attesdance of witnesses. But the end, however good, might be abused by the mneans which were used to at- tain it. In this instance, they did not seem to have thoughr it incumbent on 'them to produce their authority until tuey had committed what might be caUed the mischief. The Jury must therefore find for the plaintiff, but it was by no means a case for aggravated damages. The jury would think for them- selves; bu4t where a party had thonght ft to eludethe 8ervice of the saupcena, and withdraw himselt for three whole months from his wife and farmily, he was not exactly the object who had the largest claim to consideration. - The Jury, after a little hesitation, found, for the plaintiffJDa- mages, one shilling: coats, one-sbilli NORTEHAMPTON. MONDAY. JuLY 26.