The Sun. — 1853-11-05 (London, England)

ASSAULTS BY A GENTLEMAN ON THE TURF.-IN THE MATTER OF JOHN HENRY NOLAN. This insolvent, who had betted on the turf, applied to be discharged under the act. Mr. Macrae opposed on the part of Mr. Morris and his wife, and also for a Mr. Smith. Mr. Sargood supported. The complaint was that the insolvent was indebted for damages in two actions for assaults, and that the injury complained of was malicious. It appeared that he lodged at the house of Mr. Morris, who is a printer, in Tennison-street, York-road, Lambeth. In the early part of February he went home at past twelve o'clock at night, and asked Mrs. Morris, who lighted hies up stairs and gave him a candle, whether the " felon " in the first floor had come home, as he should not sleep there again. He was informed that he had not come home. Without the slightest provocation he struck Mrs. Morris and blackened both her eyes, and she declared would have thrown her over the stairs had not her dress given way. She cried "murder," and her lodger Mr. Smith (the other opposing creditor) came to her assistance. The insolvent attacked him, and whilst on the stairs struck him with a poker, and he was felled to the ground and bled profusely. Both Mrs. Morris and Mr. Smith were attended by a surgeon, and confined some days. An action was brought and tried at the Surrey Assizes. In each case the jury awarded 751. damages, which, with the costs, amounted to a considerable sum, and for which the insolvent was now in custody. The question raised was whether there was "malice," in order to bring the case within the act of Parliament ? It was stated that the insolvent was tipsy at the time he committed the assaults. Mr. Commissioner Murphy thought there was malice in law, but he wished to hear the evidence of the parties, whereupon. Mrs. Morris and Smith were examined. The Insolvent stated to his counsel that he had been to a dinner party, and was intoxicated when he returned home. Mr. Macrae wished to know whether the insolvent was not connected with a gambling-house ? In answer to questions, The Insolvent stated that he was not connected with a gambling-house. He had betted, and on the last Chester Cup lost 1101. He had betted on a good many races. He had bought tickets at betting-offices, and had lost money. Mr. Macrae prayed a judgment for the damages awarded in two cases of gross assault, and contended that the injuries had been maliciously inflicted. It would be an abuse of the act to allow a person who had dissipated his means in betting transactions to wipe out the damages and costs by going through this court, without a serious judgment. Mr. Sargood insisted that there was no malice in law. and that the case could not come under the act of Parliament. The insolvent was drunk at the time, and not in his senses.  Mr. Commissioner Murphy expressed himself clearly of opinion that there was malice in law proved against the insolvent, and that intoxication was no palliation or extenuation. Here was a woman who, without any provocation, had her eyes blackened, and a lodger, who came to see what was the row, felled to the ground with a poker. If it was not malice, then, as the song said, "it was forlove he was knocked down." Malice had been made out, and for the damages awarded, the insolvent would receive a judgment of six months. Judgment accordingly.