proved to have been present and actively employed), came up, carrying sticks and stones, and demanded that Pitts should be given up to them, and threatening, in case of refusal, that they would "pull the bloody house down." An attack was then made upon the house, the front door and the lower windows were beaten in, and the shutters and frames of some of the windows much broken. A portion of the mob entered the house, repeating the expressions before mentioned, and did much damage to the furniture; but, in about twenty minutes from their first approach, the mob being unable to find Pitts, and a rumour being spread that the mayor was coming, they went away. The question was, whether the proof of these facts was sufficient to support the indictment. TINDAL, C. J.-I am of opinion, that this offence does not come within the act of Parliament on which these parties are indicted. The persons committing the outrage must have the intention of destroying the house before they can be charged with a felonious beginning to demolish. In the present case, it is clear that they had no such intention, and that they had another intention, not within the scope of this indictment, which was merely to get possession of the person of Pitts. The prisoners must be acquitted. Verdict-Not guilty. Ryland and Bullock, for the prosecution. Andrews, Serjt., Price, and Dowling, for the prisoners. See the case of Rex v. Thomas, ante, Vol. 4, p. 237; and the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 8, which is set out, Id. p. 238. See, also, the charge of Lord Chief Justice Tin- 1833. REX v. PRICE. 1833. KINGSTON ASSIZES. (Civil Side.) BEEORE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE TINDAL. Upon a count POYNTER v. BUCKLEY. CASE for an excessive distress, with a count for not for not selling selling at the best prices. Plea-General issue. goods distrained at the best prices, the plaintiff may go into evidence to shew that the goods were allowed to stand in the rain, and that they were improperly lotted. It was proposed, on the part of the plaintiff, to shew that the property distrained, which consisted of materials used by coachmakers, was kept in the rain; and that at the sale the articles were not properly lotted, and that therefore the property distrained did not sell for a good price. Andrews, Serjt., objected, that as there was no count for treating the distress improperly, and no count for mismanaging the sale, this evidence was not receivable. TINDAL, C. J.-I am of opinion, that, under the count for not selling at the best prices, this evidence is admissible, because the mis-management imputed is so nearly connected with the sale, and it is alleged, that, in consequence of this mis-management and neglect, the property did not sell at better prices. The evidence was received. Verdict for the plaintiff-Damages, 201. Platt, for the plaintiff. Andrews, Serjt., and Petersdorf, for the defendant. [Attornies-J. Rippon, and Sharpe.] 1833. ALTEN V. FARREN. ASSUMPSIT on a bill of exchange. Plea-General A defendant ex issue. A witness for the defendant having been objected to, on the ground of interest, a release which had been previously executed by the defendant was handed to the plaintiff's counsel for him to look at. Platt, for the plaintiff, objected to the form of it, as it did not cover liabilities which might afterwards accrue. ecuted a release to a witness, but before it was given to the witness it was handed to the counsel on the opposite side, for his inspection. He objected to the form of it, and it was altered, and the defendant re-execut ed it:-Held, The release was altered to meet this objection, and the that it was suffidefendant re-executed it. Platt, for the plaintiff, objected, that this release was not sufficient to render the witness competent, as it required a new stamp, it having been executed before the alteration. TINDAL, C. J.—I think that it is quite sufficient without a new stamp, it was only handed to Mr. Platt for his perusal, and not absolutely delivered. The witness was examined. cient, and that it did not require a new stamp. Verdict for the defendant. Platt, for the plaintiff. Hutchinson, for the defendant. [Attornies-Padwick, and Spence & D.] 1833. March 29th. JOLL v. FISHER. Assumpsit for ASSUMPSIT for necessaries supplied to the defen necessaries sup plied to the de- dant's wife. Plea-General issue. fendant's wife. The writ was sued out in June, the declaration being in Novem ber, and the record dated in November:Held, that the plaintiff might recover for things supplied up to the date of the record. It appeared that the defendant was arrested on bailable process in this cause, in the month of June, 1832, and that the declaration was of Michaelmas Term, 1832; the record being dated on a day in that term. Platt, for the defendant, submitted, that the plaintiff could not recover for any thing supplied after the suing out of the writ. TINDAL, C. J.-I think that the plaintiff is entitled to recover for necessaries supplied up to the time of the declaration, which is the date of the record; and I think that the writ is merely process to bring the defendant into Court. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed up to the date of the record. Thesiger, for the plaintiff. Platt, for the defendant. [Attornies-Rippon, and Toulmin.] The Judge at the assizes will MASPERO v. STRACHAN. ANDREWS, Serjt., applied on the part of the plaintiff not postpone the to put off the trial of this cause, on account of the absence trial at the instance of the plaintiff, on the ground of the illness of a material witness, as the plaintiff can withdraw his record. of a material witness, on affidavits of the plaintiff and his attorney that the witness was ill. Platt, for the defendant.-The plaintiff ought to withdraw his record. TINDAL, C. J.-Is there any instance of such an application being granted? Andrews, Serjt.-I apprehend that it has been frequently done. TINDAL, C. J.-The plaintiff has the remedy in his own hands he may withdraw his record. Application refused, and the plaintiff with- Andrews, Serjt., for the plaintiff. Platt, for the defendant. [Attornies-Fawcett, and Smith & Co.] At the Sittings in London and Middlesex, applications of this kind are always refused. The only cases in which such applications are ever entertained (except at the instance of the defendant), are, where the defendant enters the record, as is the case with indictments preferred in the Court of King's Bench, indictments removed by certiorari at the instance of the defendant, &c. 1833. MASPERO บ. STRACHAN. |