Gazette Of The United States, & Philadelphia Daily Advertiser

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 13

LEWIS V. ALCOCK.

Mr. Garrow stated this to be an action brought for damages for a violent assault committed on the plaintiff by Mr. Alcock, upon the hustings, at the late election for the borough of Southwark, where he had acted as agent for Mr. Tierney, and, as he was then in Court, the Jury might perceive, from his superior bulk and strength, that he was a person over whom the plaintiff could have but little chance of success, if he had made any resistance.

The immediate consequence of this attack made by the friend of the popular candidate was, that the mob called out to have Mr. Lewis thrown down from the hustings among them. The jury ought, therefore, by the damages they should give, to discountenance any proceedings at an election that went to hold up any man as an object of vengeance to a mob.

Mr. Carpenter Smith and Mr. Broadley, two magistrates for the county of Surrey, who attended at the hustings as the friends of Messrs. Thornton and Thellusson, said, that they saw the defendant collar the plaintiff, for the purpose of dragging him away from the hustings, insisting that, as he was not an elector, nor a clerk, he had no right to be there. Upon this the plaintiff was appointed a check clerk, that he might be qualified to remain where he was, and assist Mr. Thornton.

Mr. Thornton was then called;—he said the plaintiff did attend the hustings at the desire of his acting committee man.

Mr. Erskine made an able speech for the defendant; he thought the successful candidates ought to have been contented with gaining their election, and not have forwarded such a contemptible action as the present against the agent of Mr. Tierney. The plaintiff had no right to go to the Hustings, as not being a voter; by doing so, he became one of the mob; and the right to choose Representatives in this free country must be done away, if unqualified men, who thus intermeddled in elections were not excluded. He could not deny that an assault had been committed, according to law: but it was of such a nature, and attended with such circumstances, that he trusted not more than one shilling damages would be given.

After two or three words from Lord Kenyon, the jury retired, and remained deliberating for a considerable time: at length they gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages ONE SHILLING.

June 17.