Sheriff's Court, Tuesday,...
This was an action for assault. The defendant having suffered judgment to go by default, ajury was summoned to assess damages. The jury having been ssorn, M2r. AnDox.rrus, the deferdant's counsel, begged to be allowed, out of the usual course, to make a few obaervations, which he hoped vould be well received by he other sidc, and if not, the case would proceed without prejudice. The plaintiffand the defendant were both well known to the public-the former as an able performer at Drury. lane theatre, and the latter as manager of that place ofamusement. A disagreement had arisen between the patties, wnich had led to the pre- sent action. Public performers never appeared to any advantage be. fore the public except on the boards of the theatre. There they were sure to experience kindness and attention; but in a court of lawr they were not likely to be treated with the saime consi. deration. MXr. Elliston now acknowledged that he had npoken and acted in a violent manner tovwards Air. Williams, for which he was extremely sorry. Nothing more be was sure, could be required on the part of Afr. Williams. lhemartles had been on te-Ms of amity since the transaction took place which was the ground of the action. Air. Williams had, by Air. Elligton's permission, been singing at Vauxhall, and, he believed, performing at Mr. Ellis. ton's theatre at Leamington, and he was a1li engged at Drury-lane Theatre. It was for the interest of both parties considering their relative situatioln, that a good understanding sAoold sabsuit be- tween thlem. The defendarwt-wAs willing to pay the costs. 2Xr. C. PxSILLJIPs for the plaintifi; sad, that It had never been the intention of his client to seek for v&indictive damages X his otly |object Ivd been the vindication of his character. Mr. Elliston had, by irewd in Court, acknowledged that he had assaulted DIr. !Wl1iarns but as he had, through his advocate, come forwara in a handsome manner, and expressed his sorrow for what he had done, hc (Mr. Pliillips) was instructed by ir, Williams to secoRd the swish of Mr.Adolphus, that the partiesmnlght live on good terms with each other. He wii sure that the plaint6ff would not appear in an unfavoural,le light before the public, for having agreed to a compro- mise rather than attempted to put money in his pocket. The plain- tiff would therefore content to have a nominal verdict in his favoar, the defendant undertaking to pay costs. The jury then retuzned a verdict for the plaintiff. Tho jplaintiff and a number of his fellow-actors were in court. SHERIFF'S COURT, TUESDAY. OCT. 26. WILLIAMS V. VLT.T.qTQv.