Summer Assizes.
The Times, 1824-09-14T00:00:00

This was atn action brought by the plaintift to recover a compent- satlon in Ztamages from the defendant Smith, for an assaiult comrit- ted upon l:er by Smith's wife. The defeftdants pleaded that the plaintiff ws the aegressor. and that tlhe injurv of which she coat- plained was nocasionea by her own ass;ult ont the defendanets wife- The plainitiff, in her replcation, alleged that the defendants cosn- niitted the asssalt of their own wfrong, and without the cause astUegd by thtem ia their plea; and thereupon issue was joined. Mr. SCAn LeTT, in statinz the case to tbe jury. informed them that thc phaintifi' in thi:s cause was a widow woman of great virnie and respactability, residing at Wrigley-britlgq, near Bury; wod. that the-defendani was an inbabitant of the same place, vho cared on the busi:pesa of a cotton-spinn^r. The present action wasbtoutlht, as they kad al eady heard fromn his learned friend, for the purpose if recovering a cotupensation In damages for an as&ault which the wife of the defendant had committed on the plaintiff. Ae wts sure that he need not tell them that a husbland was liakle for the rniu.arn- dUcE of his wile ; for every body knew, that when a masr married, he took his wile for better nod for worse, and tha: if she kappened to have a foul tongue or a hjavv hand, he must teake the consequernces of' them as part of her forneuc. The wife of the defendant, he wa.st sorry to sea'. possessed the qualification of a foul tongue aLncd a heavy hand in a very cminent degree, and was accutometd to exer- citse t hem frec7v,to tfle great annovanceof herhusbazit and her 'amilyv A iew days before that mentinaed in the declaratioei, Mrs, Smith, the wife of the defendant, sawv the plaintiff, 1llrs. Holt, w,tking in the street, and publicly applied to her an expression wrich ne v.Yq3an couldl hear without oftince. The expression passed u,sswsented buo' not unnoticed, -, the time. In a Liv or two afterwards, Udr. ilolc and M1rm. Smith met in the high road, when the plaintiff, expecting to find Mrs. Smith in a milder mncod, zsked whether she had meant to apply to her the term which she had used tome days before. Mrs. Smith reptlied that she did and then, without anr further provoca- tion-without any offensive languare being useW or wxithout any act of aggression being coomttitteti-assailed the Plaintiffin a nost brutal anitl unjustitiable manner. She threw at her several large stones, of which one bruied her severels, ard brokc npqn her head a po. whsiel . in bre.aking, i':flicted u;pon her a severc and danxerous bruise. Fle (lidi not mean to say that the skull was ftractured br it; but en a surzegn's being called in, it was foundt necessary to raiste the scalp antI exanine the skull, as. the external anDearances were such as were generally seen wben a fracture of the skull had taken place. Fromll the effects of these blow, the plaintiff had suffered scriouslytfr a long time; she bail been twoimouths under the care of a surge-an and even at this rmGoment ensild not bcmst of the re-establishment of her health. 'What thc motive of M'e-, Smith wvas in makir7 this assault, he coutld not pretend to sav-thar was between God and her own eon- science: but this he wauld sa',. that the plea wbich the defendant had placedl on the record, that tbe plaintiffhad been the aggressoz and com- mittedl the fir.,t assautlt, could nevt rbe established in evidence4and if so_ that the v- rdict of the jjury must be for the plaintiff. The question of damages vroald then cnme under their consideration and he had no doubt that, after thlrev had heard his evidence, they would gire Saclh an amoant as would Meet the justice of the case, and satisfy the ex- pectations of hic cliert. Sevesal witnes,es wvere then called, who described the assault to have taken place undler the precise circumstances mentioned in Mr. Scarlett's speech. Thev all denied that the plaintiff had given ary hlow or used any abuisive languaze to Mrs. Smith. Dr. Handeil Greenhail, a phrsician at Bur,v proved the nature of the wounds re- ceited by the plaintiff. Before she received them. the plaintiff was a olly-olooking womtan. of plethoric habits; since that time she had hee! perpetu-dlv ill, but he would not say in consequence of those blos. He had himself atteneed her for tnorc than a mouth. .Mr. PBotlo FGJAt, for the defendants, asserted that his client had received provocation ot a nature which no woman could bear. bef:re yhe was guilty of this assault. He would call a witnesc befbre them w'to would describe to them what that pmrrvoamior was; and after he had done that, he wnuld leave the case in their hands, being quite satfsfied that if they deemned it necessary no oind a verdict for toe ..aintifCs theY would not rfive her, as darnages, a larger sum than seas covered by the s:nallest denouo-r.ation of coin in use in uite countrv'. A witness was melled, who proved that the plaintiff had addressed the defendant to termus not at all calculated to calm the feelings of a jealous woman, just before the assault was committed. The plain- tiff certainly did inot commence that assault by striking the de- fendant. After a reply from 'Mr. Sc 5RLETT, Alr. Baron HUtLLoC slulnniel up tht evidence, and the Jury retained a verdict fbr the SUM MJA_VF? S4tZRS. L.ANCASfRR. SATUJRDAY. SEPT. 11. BeforeMr. Baron H EULLOCL. TnT-' V- v.l AT " AVn io;