Court Of Common Pleas, Mo...
stir. acrrgeant VAUGMLN; statedtthe plaintiff's case to the jury. The plainuff, who was a Well known and highly respected merchant of thc city of London, hiad felt it dae to himeclf, his friends, and, he might almost say, the public, to-seek reparation in a court of law for a waRton attack whiich had been rnade by the defendant upon his character and assault upen his person. The functions of a jury could never be inore wholesomely exercisedl than employed in correcting any person who departed from the line of conduct which became a Fentleman and a merchant. It would be necessary for him to enter into a short stateme,t of circuntitances which occurred previously to the tranisaction wtvichi formed the ground of the present action. In August last, the plaintiff contemplated a journey to Parig, for the purpose of endlcavouring to obtain the recognition of the Spanibh 13onds, or for some other object which it waS not material to state more particularly. He went to Brighton to take leave of his family; and whilst there, the defendant called upon him, and expressed a desire to take part in the expected negotia- tidnS at Paris. The plaintiff did not accede to the defel- dant'a wishcs. The defendant then asked the plaintiff to introduce him to a Air. Baily. The plaintiffconsented; anEl on his return to London he introduced the defendant to Mr. Baily at the sam,e time telling Mir. Edaily all that had passed between himself aind the tie- fendant, which the latter acknowledged to be correct. Immediately after the plaintiff went to Paris, and returned In a few days to Lon- don, but saw nothiing of the defendant until the 10th of October, when, as he was passing through Slhorter's-court to enter tile Ex- change, he perceived the defendant advancing towards him. When the defendant came up to the plaintiff, he asked for an explanation of something which lie said the plaintiffhad stated concerning hinm. Some conversation ensued between the parties, during which the de. tendant conducted himself very violently, and,in conclusion,shook his umlbrella, accompanying the action with an offeniaive remark. The plaintiffbehaved withl perfect propriety. Upon receiving the insult, he said that lie could not as a gentleman go out with the defendant, after what he had leard of him atParis. The indignity which had been put upon the plaintiff'was the reore insupportable, on account of the place whcre it had been effered-on the threshold of the Stock-Exchange, the sanetuary of commerce, " even there where merchants do most resort." Under such circumstances, the plaintiffhad felt it neces- sary to institute the present proceeding, and he (AlMr. Sergeant Vaughan) triusted that it would serve as a precedrent, for a jury of merchants were the best arbiters in an affair such as that fi question. He saw that the defendant had retained for his counsel a gentleman ot great reputation, but who was not in the habit of prac- tising in that court. On this occasion the great northern lumlinary had been brought to illuminate their dark atmos- phere by the briUiancy of hit eloquence. This, in his opinion, was a proof of the unsoundness of the defendant's cause. In des. perate cases, extraordinary remedies must be resorted te; and there. foire it was, that the defendant would not be content with the usual practitioners in this Court. The defendaoit could not, certainly, have mafhe a 1;etter choice of an advocate ; for, if ever there was ope man more capable than anothes of making the worst prove the better cause, it was his learned and respected friend. In conclusion, he would observe, that the object of the plaintiff was not to obtain large damages, but merely to clear his character in the eyes of the world. The learned counsel then called the following witncsses:_ EbenezerBarber deposed,that he knew the plaintiffiand the defend- ant; the former was a miember of the Stock Exchange, the latter was not. On the 10th of October, he saw the plaintiff in the lobby leading to the Stock Exchange, froni Shorter's-court, Ialking with MIr. Ricardo. He saw the defendant go up to bim and, shake an umbrella over hiis hcad, and say, " If you are a gentleman, you will know what that means." Tlhe plaintiff repliea "I know better than to go out with such a niaii as vou ;" and added, " Show yourself at Paris, and see what tlicy will say to you there." The defendant said " I have been there, yoas fool; ' andt stated atmonig other things that the plaintiff was a " a rascal, and no gentleman."1 The plaintiff also said to the defendant" H ear what the Mlessrs. Baring say to you." The scene took place about one o'clock which was an hour or business, M0any persoIs camc upon hearing t row. Cross-examnined.The plaintiff was in a passion, but not so much go as rhe defendant. lWilliam Itlorean, a imeniber of the Stocl Exchange, deposed, that on the day in question he saw the defendant holding his umbrel- la taised against the plaintiff. There appeared to be general abuse go,ng on on the part of the defendant, but he did not stop to hear it. Jacob Ricardo deposed, that he was in conversation with the plaintiff in ShorLer's-court on the 10th of October. The defendant came up to the plaintiff, and said, " tir. Goldsmidt, I wish to have a little explanation with you, and hope you will fix aomne time for that purpose." The plaintiff, who seemed to know what the defen. dant alluded to, said, " 'We, Sir." 'T'hc defendant then said, On a recent occasion, your conduct was any thing but that 'of a gentleman." The plaintiff was very indignant, and replied that " lie was nojudgeof hiscon4tuct,and that lie could notplace his c?aracterjn competiti'on with his. The defendant then shook kisumbrella over the laintiff's head,snd said, (lf yea have the feelingsofa gentleman,you inow what this ineans ;" and he also called the plaintiff a black- guard. In the course of the alter6ation, the plaintiff'said to the *le- hendant, v lVbydid you not come tome atParih ? when I was there, you did not dare to show yourslf there." Thc defendant replied, 'I was at P;ri.s, and walked about there evetv day like vourself." He (the witness) had now had enough of the business, ana he walk- Cross-examnined by Jib. BaouGAtr.-The altercation lasted .oue time, The abuse ald offensive expressloio wzere not used e- clusively by the deteadant. Thc tnti& hi% d 'talk la t of the debate he got warm. Mr. Bnocra.4-That is a tod way7f dcAcibiog the baa! newb, Mr. Ricardo. A debate. means comnetbing ecry amusIng, ane not alway3 very regilar. Did yaunot, at theconmeincemeit of thi ailtir, or to speak more correctlv, at an " early perfilof the de. bate," hear the plaintif nay, O' Fromn what I liave eard at Paris, I will have nothing to do with vou o?_ do not recollect. I suppose there was no limitition of the right of reply int your de. bate, you admitted of reply on reply ?-Ob yes. And after the umbrella hai been used in Ihe matner deacribed, did not tho plaintiff go behind come pelsono and carry on the de. bate ?-It vpai abou% that time when I made my retreat. Ay, you crietl " netion" an tbey:dp eleetrbere; yeo hed had enough of it7_I haa indeed. Alr. Bailly weas then called, and the coansel for the plaintiff was proceeding to examine him 17ith reiBct to some tngaction which took place in August, when. Mr. BRouTGiMAM objected to-lthe evidence, and the Covrt 3ua. tained the objection. t Thiswas the case for the pwmetion.- Mr. JROUGHAaI addressed the Court for the dedendant. e complained that the Icartied eeraeant, in 6penixtg the case to the jory, bad gone into a hiStory oa circmstancea which he knew he could not be allovmd,to prove in a yproeding-of this nature.. His Iearned friend had not correstly iescribed the depprtmentof hfi rwIient, whieb, itscenacd, he had been lsPtiucted to cay,was perfectly properand genatlemnlikae. lt%a proved by the evidence ofthat moat respectable witness, his excelleut friend Mir. Ricardo, that the first time the defendant addresned the plaintiSff he did ao in the most calm manner.. He a9ked'him io aPpoint a tUte to enter Into an ex- planation respecting his (the defeidant'e) 'conduct. lProm that circumstance the jury. would infer that eomethinghad previously passed between the parties, of which under the present form of pro ceeding, they could Icamn nothing.. It would be for them, however, to fill up the blank which was left in the evidence, The. form of proceeding which the plaintiff had adopted on tlie preeat occasion was an extraordinary one. It was the usual coase of proceeding, when a person was assaulted by another In a way which tended tQ provoke 4 breach of the peace, for the party, ,rieve_4 to n1aUe a, de- position of all the &tcl conmnectW with the case, tofo ce it UPpop thp files of the Coqrt of King's Bench, and, upo tat, to' movo fsr a cr1. minal information. The oppoRite party rkewiae maade an afdavii of faets; and thus every part of the transaionA became ls'na'n to those who bad to decide upon it. The.plaintifT, however, had not thought proper to pursue that course, but had adopted a form of pToceediug by which he could state just comuch of the question be. tereen the parties. He cot,ld not conceive upon what ground the alantiff came into court for damages. Re fiad taked the law into his own hands by the way in which he hd retaliated upon the de. fendant. In his opinion, the language.of bhe plaintiff was more in. sulting than that of the defendaat. "YdU did not dare to qhAc your face at Paris," sai4 the Innoceut md -llI,Rpd'Mr. Goldsmidt. This speech was not only ofibnsia, hut,.z it rtuned out, utterly groundless. " Hear what the Me6 ngyof -you " ws ani. other of the plainiff"n retna5rIcs. Wa- t no hilngP ?.ii. would' any of the jury like to have .i tn tost respectable mer. chants In Englandhe mnighttay 1W To reerd to as voaith. era for some charge against tliamra The ambiguity of the plainsifF's charges did not lessen their ect T4ey meant any thinR and every thing, beingjust particularenough to appearto havesome foundation yet so vague as to render it Imposwibleto answer them. The plain: tiffhad told the defendant to go to Pais, and to heawhatpeople there said of hir. lie had gone to Paris, and it Vas on account of what certain people had there saidofhim that he went to thle plaintiff for an explanation. The defen4qnt hbd certainly Imade use of some harsh expre"siong, and it wan also clear that a verdict must pass for the assault, but d&meges were quite out of the question. He once more begged iea'e to renmind the jury, that the plain$iff had not thought fit to take the ease before the Court of King's Berch, the gieat conservator of the pence of the na. tion; there must have been reasons for thuS. In the CoUrt of King's Bench, e pl4nrifF did not apear t9q advantage unless his conduct was blameless; but by the present form of pro. ceedinn the conduct of a plainiffT might be all that was bad, and that ox a defendant all but justifiable, and yet thoae circumstvaces could not be brought under the notice of the jury. He was on. vinced, that it the jury were to give heavy damages no man Would be more surpriced at, or have less resp-ct fortheir verdict, than his learned friend on the other side. The learned rergeejt, who was tWehief practitioner on the other aide, had observed, that it argued the extent, or as he wo414 eall jt, the acerbity of the detendant'a disease, that he had called in the assistance of a atrange doctor. He was aware that he could not be conaidered a regular practitioner in that court; he had not taken his degrees, and w7as not clothed witli the cap, which was the emblem of having regularly graduated (alludilg to the wigs wom by sergeants.) The defendant, therefore, nad not becn attended by a regular doctor of she college, but &o far from inferring from that circumstanpe, th4t he entertained a bad opi- nion of his cas, it would lead bits to quiie an opposite conclunaoW- namely, that the defendant belng fully convInced of its coundneas, was of opinion that he might safely leave It in any hands, however inexperienced. Lord Chief Justice BEST observed; that the learned counsel who had so eloquently addressed the jury, havijig admitted the 4aaault, little remained for hin to say on tie occaaion. 'There was, however, ,one point ofthe learned gentleman'a address which eraed to have produced some efflect, as indeed everythig he aild xis calculated to (10, and upon which be would therefre make an obevation. The learned counsel had stated, that if tha plaeintiff had gne tothe Court of King's Bench, all the circunistancex aikih:ea occurred between the parties previous to the assauit' woula h ive been dis. closed, and affbted to regret that such disClszure could not be made to the jury on the present occasion, The leasenW counsel was not entitled to take that remark, for liellimself it was, who, by ctopping the evidence of Mr, Bailly, had prevented the full disclosure of the circumstances alluded to. In his opinion, the plaintiff would net have acted wisely in taking the 'cse Into the Caurt of King's Bebch. The offence had been committed in the city of London, in which the plaintiff was a niercheanti and it was a case wvhich came properly within the province of ri jury of mter. cbants. It wtas a case In which the jury wavle not eallad upon to give large damgs si.e fb dlz - .1 4 S>snStbrgtncQr veretips tpaway the atagsawhich, might attach to the plaintiff's charzacter In conceqifenee of~ the de. fendants sconduct. One word with repect. to the line of conduct which the plaintiff bed pursued. In lila opinion, he had nore con. setlted w7hat was due to his charatetr by his appeal to that court, thian by that senseless one which showed that the person w7ho recorted to it was in posstession of one quality, probably to the exelusion of any other, w hich could render his character atuilable and respected in co- hejury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff-.Da. tngs191. COURT OF COMAMON Pl,EAS. MtfmtnAv T)vr-. 2D GOLDS3MIDT V. GROVES.