The Enquirer

WINCHESTER ASSIZES.

July 10

Burges, vs. Cobbett, Aslett, and Dubber.

This was an action of assault and imprisonment, brought against the defendants, said to be men of good property, in which the plaintiff sued in forma pauperis, and laid his damages at £1000.

Mr. Borough (who was assisted by Mr. Gaselee) stated the cause at some length; from his statement it appeared, that in December last, Mr. Cobbett, of Botley, well known for his political writings, took Jesse Burges, a brother of the plaintiff, then a boy of 15, into his service, and in March, the lad ran away from his master, and returning home, complained that his master swore at him and threatened him so harshly that he could not stay with him. A warrant was issued to apprehend the boy, Mr. Cobbett having stated that he was a servant in husbandry. The boy was taken and carried to the Dolphin, at Botley, followed by his mother and brother, (William Burges, the plaintiff.). The lad being left alone took to his heels and ran off, and the mother and brother were proceeding along the road home, when on looking round, she saw Aslett and Dubber (the former a constable, and the other a tithing man) riding after them. One of them roared out, "Halloo! stop, old woman! stop, you fellow! take that old woman into custody." "I've got a pistol and will shoot you!" They seized the mother by the bonnet and hair, when the son said, if they touched his mother, he would knock them down. On which they laid hold of him, and snatched a stick from his hand, when he very naturally kicked Aslett on the leg, whereupon the tithing-man struck the plaintiff, and a scuffle ensued, which ended in the plaintiff's being dragged to Botley, after being kept prisoner for several hours on the way.—Here he was detained all night. In the morning, the mother and the son were carried before Mr. Smith, a magistrate, at Southampton; but on their arrival, Mr. Cobbett, who was there; now found he was in the wrong, and he desired the woman and plaintiff might go about their business. The young man said that his mother had many miles to go, and was unable to walk: Mr. Cobbett replied, "damn your eyes, you may get home as well as you can!"—Mr. Borough concluded by calling on the jury to give exemplary damages for the illegal violence committed by Mr. Cobbett's orders on the plaintiff and his mother.

The mother and sister of the plaintiff were examined, and corroborated the above statement. The sister was a servant to Mr. Cobbett, who threatened with an oath, to transport her for knowing that her brother ran away: he also threatened to send her elder brother to sea.

Mr. Jekyll, for the defendants, said, it was impossible for him to give any answer by evidence, for the whole was a gross fabrication. The witnesses were all of one family, and could of course tell the same story: and this was the reward and gratitude Mr. Cobbett received for the many kindnesses he had lavished on this ungrateful family. The fact was, that the lad was assisted in his escape by the mother and brother, and the defendant was justified in apprehending them. This action arose from spleen and malice. Mr. Cobbett as a political man, had naturally many enemies, and they had incited this action. He would appeal to any man in Botley whether Mr. Cobbett was an oppressive master. The whole was a trumpery case and he trusted the jury would find a verdict for the defendants.

Mr. Justice Lawrence said, that if a lad ran away from his master, he must be brought back again; but these persons were not justified in acting as they had done. If there was an attempt to a rescue, an indictment should have been preferred: as it was, their conduct was unlawful. If the boy had behaved ill, there was no reason why his brother should be imprisoned.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with ten pounds damages... London Paper.