The Express. — 1847-11-16 (London, England)

RIOT AT THE "SATIRIST'. OPPICE.—W. A. Chit:in, G. Chislin (brothers), and M. Ransil:, surrendered to answer an indictment, charging them with having committed an assault on G. Mills, on the 30th of last September. This case arose out of an affair which took place on the 30th of September, an account of which appeared in our paper. The Ghislins were in occupation of the Satirist office, 334, Strand, and had received notice to quit from Mr. Barnard Gregory, the landlord. They were to have left by Michaelmas quarter-day, but, failing to do so, Bernard Gregory employed forcible means to eject them. It appeared from the evidence now adduced, that a person named Timm (who was said by one witness to be a carpenter, and editor of the Satirist, which was afterwards denied) went with sa or seven others and ejected the Chisling by force. The Ghisling in turn got a reinforcement, and attacked Gregory's party, whom, alter a sharp contest, they succeeded in routing, and they regained possession. The prosecutor, Mills, was in the employ of Timm, and he swore that he went at ten o'clock at night, on the 30th, to the Satirist office, to ask for his master, when, being recognised by the Ohiiline as one of Timsn's men, they attacked him and beat him with such violence that he was carried into a near public house nearly insensible, and covered with blood. The prosecutor contradicted himself in most of the material points, and positively swore that the defendant, Augustus Gbislin, was Mental, and rice verul. He said that the morning after the assault the whole affair was investigated before Mr. Jardine, at Bow-street, when that magistrate refused to grant either a summons ors warrant for either of these defendants, although he told then the same story as now, about his being carried bleeding to a public-house.—Mr. Serjeant Adams could not believe that Mr. Jardine would have acted thus if he had heard this evidence.—Another witness was examined as to the affray, but instead of corroborating the prosecutor, he contradicted him, and added more confusion to the case. At length the patience of the jury was exhausted, and they declared that if there were not other evidence it was a waste of time to proceed. There being no further evidence, the jury found the defendants not guilty at once, and Mr. Serprant Adams said, a more unsatisfactory case had never come before him, and as to the refusal of Mr. Jardine to grant a summons for persons who had murderously assaulted another, as this man alleged he had been, he did not believe a word about it —This was the last case, and the court adjourned till the 23d inst.  the previous afternoon, when he saw tho prisoner and another man knocking at the door of a pablic-house. As it was divine service at the time he requested them to go away, They promised to do so, and complainant proceeded round his beat. When be returned they were still knocking with more violence than before. He told them to go away or he must take them into custody. He was passing on when the prisoner's companion came behind him and struck him a violent blow on the back of his head. They then ran away. He pursued them, and succeeded in taking the prisoner into custody. The other man made his escape. The prisoner, who pleaded drunkenness as the esuse of his committing the offence, was fined 40s. or 21 days' imprisonment.