Page images




I think the presumption of the private rights of the plaintiff are negatived by the circumstances of this case; so far at least as to make it incumbent on him to adduce some evidence of property, or act of ownership, from which property may be inferred. . In the absence of such evidence, I shall direct the Jury to presume' the locus in quo to be common land or waste.


Hullock, serjeant, and Richardson, for the plaintiff.

[merged small][ocr errors]


NESIAM and Others v. ARMSTRONG and Others.


tioned in a clause of the

tinct from a

the latter terms, Q. If

In an action THIS was an action against the Hundred for on the Riot

the destruction of a stable, and two staiths, Act, and upon the 520 G. III. part of a colliery, by a mob, on the 20th of March, the Hundred; 1816. The staiths and stable were in the townHeld, that burning,

ship of Bishop Wearmouth. The stable was pulled though speci- down; and one of the staiths was burnt.

. As refically men

spected the stable, the declaration was framed upon statute, as dis- the 1st Geo. I. st. 2. c. 5. ; the Riot Act. In redemolishing or gard to the staiths, which are places for the deposit is included in of coals; the counts were framed upon the 520

Geo. III. c. 130. s. 2. The clause in the latter a staith, which statute is as follows: " And be it further enacted, is a place of deposit for

that if, after the passing of this Act, any person or coals, is au erection, persons, (following the words of the Riot Act,) engine, within shall unlawfully or with force demolish or pull the meaning of down, &c. any erection and building, or engine, second sec. which shall be employed in the carrying on or tions of the 52d G. III. c. 130. conducting of any trade or manufactory, or any

branch or department of any trade or manufactory of goods, &c. of any kind or description whatever; or in wbich any goods, &c. shall be warehoused or deposited, that then, &c.” The clause then proceeds to make such demolishing felony, and gives an action against the Hundred by the parties injured to recover damages.

It appeared that there had been an examination of one of the plaintiffs before a magistrate, in com


pliance with the provision of the 4th section of the Act, who was the principal manager of the


[merged small][ocr errors]

Richardson, for the defendants, contended, that ARMSTRONG

and Others. as the object of the act was to detect the offenders, all the plaintiffs should have been examined. The act directs that all persons who claim redress shall be sworn and examined.

BAYLEY, Justice. -I think if the plaintiff, who was examined, was the manager, and the only person actively employed, it is sufficient. I will not stop the case on this objection.

Richardson then objected, 1. That the case did not fall within the 52d Geo. Ill. c. 130. s. 2.; that clause extended only to trades and manufactories, the conductors of which (under the general name of traders and manufacturers) were meant to be protected from the violence of a mob. Warehouses and depositories of goods might require such protection. But, in the present case, the staiths do not fall under the description in the act. They are not erections, buildings, or engines, for the purpose of trade and manufacture. They are parts of a colliery quite distinct from general trade. Neither could the owners of the staiths be called traders in the common use of the word. 2. With respect to the larger staith, it was burned. Burning is not included in the general word demolishing. There is a clause in the act specifically providing redress against burning, which does not mention demolishing.


and Others


BAYLEY, Justice.--I think burning is included in

the general word demolishing, &c. The act meant NESHAM

to provide against destruction and spoliation; burn

ing is only one of the means. With respect to the and Others objection upon the staith not being within the

clause of the act of parliament, I will reserve the point.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

Hullock, serjeant, and Tindall, for the plaintiffs.

Richardson, for defendants.





Aug. 15.

THE prisoner was indicted on the 431 G. III.

must be con

He en

In an indict.

ment upon the c. 58. The circumstances were these :-The 430 G. III.

C. 58. Semble prosecutor and some other men had got hold of a that the words

some other woman, who, as they conceived, had been using grievous boanother person ill. They said that she deserved to

dily harm," be ducked in a trough which was near; but it did strued to exnot appear that such was their intention. The wounds only

as are inAieted prisoner, who was at some distance at the time, on upon a vital being informed that they were using the woman ill, body.

part in the exclaimed, “ I have got a good knife," and immediately rushed to the place where she was. tered among the crowd, and instantly struck the

progecutor on the shoulder with a knife. The prosecutor turned round upon him; a struggle ensued between them; and in that struggle the prosecutor received other wounds. After they had fought for some time, the prisoner dropped the knife, and ran away. The wound upon the prosecutor's shoulder was about seven inches long, and two deep; and the lap of one of his ears was cut. There was likewise a slight wound on the gland of his neck, and a cut on his left arm. The indictment contained counts,

« PreviousContinue »