Lincoln, Monday, Aug. 2.
'These Asilzes commenfw thlg day betore ftiuct Justice YEST ID the Civil, and Mr. Justie HoLoROD in tha Criminal Court. ISr PEXUS COURT.-BHAtTLEY V. POPPLETON AND WIFE. This was an action on the case against the defendant, Dlary Pop. pleton, for a malicious and Improbable prosecution for assault, in- stituted by her against the plairtift' Plea-the general issue. 1\r. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated the case to the Jury. His client, he said, was a gentleman of zreat- respectability, connected with the profession of the lair, at Boston, in this county, who had felt himself called upon, by a regard to his ch2aracter as a prot'es- sionaliman, to institute the present proceedings. The complaint which he preferre"eaga;nst these parties was that the wife, by the sanction of her husband, charged him maliciously, and with im- proper motives,. with committing an assault upon her, and that she instituted a criminal pro2secUtion without probable cause against hirn, for that of'ence, nf which, however, lie was, after trial, most honourably acquitted. It was but candour to tell the Jury, that they nust be satisfied that this form of complaint contained two indispensable reqv.isites before they entered irto the p lain. tiff's case-namely, first, that the bill of indictment preferred by the defendant was without probable cause; and secondly, and as inferential from the former, that the prosecution was undertaken from:un worthy and malicious motives. He had no doubt of being able to make out such a case by his witnesses as would prove incontest- ably that the defendant entirtainedhostile and vindictive feelings to- wards his client. He had before stated that ijr. Hartley was at- tached to that pqrt of the profession of the law, the practice of whbih exposed men to invidious and tunpopular collisions with his neigh- bours_-c was, in fact, an attorney. The defendant was a castom- house officer, and in a condition of life which rendered him fully responsible for the conduct of his wife, so far as pecuniary comrIc tency couldl form the guarantee. It happened, unfortunately, that sometime in 1815 Or 1816, the plaintiff was so situated as to be obliged to put an execution in the house of the defendant's father, .uld in thlis circumstance had originated that hostility which was afterwards demonstrated towards Mr. Hartley in a way highlY calculated to prejudice his clharacter as a moral man and a gentleman. Various expressions indicative of a de- teimined spirit of revenge would be spolen to by the wit. nesses as being used by the ladv towards the plaintiff about this time and subsequently. Things, however, remained quiet until sonme day in Septemnber, 1823, when accident tflrowing iMirs. Poppleton and the plaintifftogether, the o,poytunity-was laid hold of by the former to make a most serious clarge against theplaintiff. Alr. Hartley happened to be standing in the market-place of Poston, in the evening, when Alrs. Poppleton and a lady namned Lucy Green passed by together. In passing the plaintift, some Yery coarse and abusive expression was used by the defendant towards him, to which he made no reply; but as if his very passiveness was a fault, she ad- vanced but a few paces, when she returned pgain, and charged him in no very gentle terms with having assaulted her with a stick, which she pretended he had in his hahd. The plaintiff, indignant at being char ed with so unmanly an offence as that of assaulting a woman, repefled the accusation warmly, yet respectfully; but so deter- mined was the lady on the charge, that she insisted on referring the matter to the Mlavor. Tlhither the plaintiff accompanied her, and Lucy Green wvas also invited to accompany her in order to confirm her testimony, but this witness nearly nega- tivem. her statem-ent, and after some squabblinz amongst the women, ir which the defendant reproached Lucy Green with not telling a) that was expected from her, the business ended by the .Mayor's dismissing the complaint. lrs. Poppleton was not yet sa- tisfied, however, for she preferred a bill of indictnent at the sessions against the plaintiff, and although she herself swore positgely to dif- ferent assaults, yet as Mrs. Green continued to negative her state- ments, the plaintiff was again acquitted. These were the grounds upon which the action was brought. Damages were but a sccondary consideration with the plaintiff, his only obiect beinsg to obtain some reparation from the defendants, for thevindictive proceedings which they thought proper to instiute against him. It would be for the CRourt to say, whetlher or not there was probable cause for preferring the indictment; but the jurv could judger for themselves, whether, under all the circumstances; the defendants were not actuated by im- proper and malicious motives. The facts were preved in evidence. bIr. Cr.ArStE addressed the jury for the defence, in which he re- presented this as an aetion taken up by a country attorney, in order to cut out work for himself. He had often heard the learned ser- geant say of an attorney, that lie i' killed his owin mutton ;" but never did the observation apply so strongly as in this case. He contended that there was a total want of proof of malice on the part of the plaintiff; and that, with respect to his character for gallantry, this worthy gentleman bad alrealy purged himself, by some ex- ressions of no very gentlemanly nature which he used towards the Fady. On the whole, he submgitted with confidence that it was a case for nominal damages only. The Jury found for the plaintiff-Damazes &l;. The learnea JUDGE said, that he should consider whether, tinder all the circumstances of this action, lie should not certify for the de- fendant, so as to deprive the plaintiffof his costs. The case seemed to excite a good deal of local interest. DOE (ON THE DEMIrSE OF NICHOLSON) V. YOUN7O. This was an action of ejectmTent, brought by the lessee of Sir John Thorold, a gentleman of large property in this county, against an unuer-tenant. The case was no otherwise interesting than from the cross-examni- nation of one of the witnesses. This man, whose evidence sustain- cd a title in the defendant, wlhich was not determined at the period stated by the counsel of the lessor of the plaintiff, was thus eross- examined by AMr. Sergeant VAUGHAN:_ So this is the statement youhave to make ?-It is. OIMr. Sergeant VAUGSCAN.-I ask you, upon your oath, did you not say this morning to a gentleman, that you were sensible the cause depended upon you, but that you would turn it one way or the other for 101. ?-That I didn't. Will you swear you never said any thing equivalent to that ?-I don't know what you mean, but I know what I said ; you may put a different construCtion upon it, for you lawyers are odd chaps for twisting what an honest man says. (boud laughter.) Did you talk over this matter last night ?-To be sure we did. Over a bottle ?-Yes. Did you bet upon it ?-Yes, a bottle of wine. I Tpon what side did you bet?_ Why I bet that the tenant would keep his lands. And your evidence now goes to svnDort that ?-Yes. Mr. sergeant VAUGYHAI (tO the Court).-.l en, my Lord, I Ob- ject to the competency of this witness. (Laughing.) I submit that lie does not come here with clean hands. The LORD CHIEF JusTICE.-Oh! brother Vaughan. Mir. Sergeant VAUOIGAN.-He does not come here with clean hands. LOiRD CHIEF JUSTTCE.-Wlhat, on account ofa bottleofwine? lVould you (to the witness) be directed from the truth by a bottle of wine ?-Not at all, your Lordship. It appeareA afterwards that the wager had in fact never been made, but that the attorney's clerk on the other side had been vaponring about liis certainty of success, which tempted the witness to offer to take a bet madle by hin upon the result. The Judge reproved the conductoftlheclerk. In the result there wasa verdict for thctenant. LINCOLN, MfONDAY, AuG. 2.