The Sun. — 1818-01-16 (London, England)

ELLENBOROUGH.—I was counsel in the cause, and I recoli-e,ct that it was held not to be beginning to demolish, because having the power In demolish if they chose, the crowd went away without prosecuting their purpose : they abandoned it altogether. The COMMON SERJEANT added, that in Lord King v. Chambt•rs, the same point had been determined ; Lord Ellenboroogli then observing, " the acts of the mob must indicate a purpose to demolish the house." In the present case, the purpose was not to demolish the house, but to obtain arms and to liberate their leader.  Lord ELLENBOROUGH referred to the evidence of Holme and Lydian!, for the declarations of the rioters, remarking that the question was, whether dick polo-use was not to pull clown and demolish the house, had they not been pacified by learning that young. Watson had made his escape ? They had a general contemplation of that which came within the Act. His Lordship added, that he should rcquest the Jury to divide the damages for the arms injured, and for those stolen, in order that the Coalition Sergeant might afterwards, if he thought fit, move the Court upon the point. Mr. GURNEY submitted, thtit as it was clear upon the evidence that the arms returned to the plaintiff were marked in such a way with splinters of glass, &c., as to show that they had been used as a means of demolition of the windows, &c., the Jury would infer that those not returned (or stolen, as the Counsel on the other side contended) had been employed for the same purpose.  • The COMMON SERGEANT insisted that there was not sufficient evidence to show even that the arms returned to the plaintiff had I)eem used in demolishing the house of the plaintiff. Ti, at they had been so used afterwards to other houses would not bring them within the Act.  Mr. Robert Newrn3n was then called, in order to show, that the plaintiff had treated the fact of taking the arms as a substantive felony. For this purpose lie produced the record of the conviction of Cashman ; but on cross-examination he said that the prisoner was prosecuted by the City of London, not by the plaintiff. Lord Ellenborough declared, that it the tact were shown to be otherwise, it would make no difference. ''bough a mao might have been in:licted for the felony and convicted, it did not fix the character of the offence as applied to others. It was not less a felony becaose it was accompanied by other and higher crimes ; in Mrs. Hutchins's case it was not less a robbery because that robbery was followed up or perpetrated by murder. Mr. GUIINEYi in his reply, called upon the Jury, that the arms lost valued at 9111. were all taken for the purpose of demolition, although they might be applied afterwatds to' other purposes. Lord ELLeNsoßouGit summed up, and observed, that by the Riot Act, that which before was a mere trespass at common law, had been erected into a felony, for the more effectual protection of private property. Of course the remedy by action against the hundred (all the inhabitants being as it were pledges for the good behaviour of each other) WEIS given in its stead. 'file primary object had been to 'obtain arms ; afterwards to obtain the liheratoion of young Watson; and it seemed undoubted by the witnesses, that had he not escaped, the mob would have demolished the house. The arms they used as instruments of destruction against the building, and they were not taken away for the mete purpose of obtaining as much money as they would tell for. The Jury divided the damages as stated in the opening of Mr. Gurney ; but they expressed a clear opinion that the arms were all taken in prosecution of the purpoSe of demolition. • Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 1,2811. 135.10 d.