Kentish Gazette, 21 March 1876.

NISI PRIUS COURT - MONDAY

ASSAULT BY A FARMER AT EASTCHURCH.

HOLDEN & WIFE v. KING.

This was an action for damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff and his wife, in assaults upon them by the defendant, who pleaded "not guilty," and also that he had been summoned, fined and imprisoned for the assault in question. Mr. Gates, Q.C., with Mr. Glyn were for the plaintiff, and Mr. Winch for the defendant.

Mr. Gates, in opening the case, said the plaintiff and his wife were labouring people, and the defendant was a small farmer; and the action was for damages inflicted by King upon Holden and his wife, on the 10th July last. On that day plaintiff and his wife were in a public-house called the "Wheatsheaf Inn," at Eastchurch. The plaintiff was in the tap-room, while his wife went into the bar to sell some vegetables. The defendant was standing in the bar, and when he saw Mrs. Holden, he took a lettuce from her basket, pulled it to pieces and either threw it into her face or upon the floor. He did the same with a second lettuce, and the woman's husband then came forward and asked King what he was about. The defendant said, "What, do these belong to you? and his reply was "Yes."

In reply King struck Holden under the chin, and then felled him to the ground with a blow on the head, rendering him senseless. Mrs. Holden interfered in her husband's behalf, when without any provocation being given, defendant struck her a second blow, the effect of which was to break her jaw. A short time after that defendant was summoned before the magistrates for a common assault; and the matter having been investigated, he was fined 40s, for assaulting the man, and £5 for striking the woman, the justices indicting also in the latter case, a sentence of two weeks' hard labour. But the injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff's especially upon the woman, were a great deal more severe than could arise from any common assault, and the action was therefore taken to recover damages, to meet the expenses connected with the illness, and also for loss of service. The woman formerly kept her husband's house and also contributed by her daily earnings to the support of the family, but in consequence of this occurrence she was unable to do her usual work for 7 weeks; it was necessary to obtain her additional nourishment and a woman was employed to do the household work.

Mr. Winch said the facts related by his friends were exactly the same as were stated before the magistrates, and he admitted that the plaintiffs were proceeding in a casein which they had already taken criminal proceedings; although by those proceedings the defendant had been released from any further action that might be taken either in a civil or criminal court.

Mr. Gates contended that the fact of the magistrates having adjudicated in the case of the common assault did not prevent them proceeding for unlawful wounding. They were not to be stopped proceeding civilly because they have vindicated the law to the extent of a common assault.

In the result the case was allowed to go to the jury, who after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, assessing the damages at ten guineas for the injuries sustained by the woman, and five guineas to the man for the loss of his wife's services.

The learned Judge remarked that notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, he was of opinion that he must give judgement for the defendant. He considered that the case as now stated was for the same as that tried before the magistrates. He thought the proper wayto deal with the case would be to give judgement for the defendant, with leave to move to enter for the plaintiff for the sums of ten and five guineas, or for either of those amounts.