John Stephen Pardy Assault Case
On January 11, 1839 The Times (London) ran the following account of Pardy being assaulted over accusations he was giving scandalous material to the gossip-mongering Paul Pry magazine.
GUILDHALL. — Yesterday Cyrus Davis, the landlord of the Plough, in Smithfield, who figured about 20 years ago as a first-rate pugilist, was charged with having assaulted John Stephen Pardy, a stable-keeper in Southampton-mews, Russell-square.
The complainant stated, that on Wednesday night, while he was sitting at the King's Head, Smithfield, he was assaulted by a person named Nickling, and a gang of fellows who said he was engaged in picking up stories for the columns of the Paul Pry; so much to the contrary, however, he had been ruined by those papers; for through their base attacks he lost a place in the Queen's household. To avoid being ill-used by the gang, he was confined in the King's Head for an hour and a half. At length he obtained the aid of the police, and Nickling was taken to the station-house. While he was making his statement, Davis entered, and Nickling said, "Here is a man can speak to his character." Complainant replied, "Yes, he knew Davis when he was in the King's Bench," on which Davis instantly struck him, and he did not recover his senses for five minutes.
Davis, who has the general character of a mild inoffensive man, replied that he went to the station-house to collect his pots, and unexpectedly found the complainant there. Now, a scandalous attack on the character of himself and his wife had appeared in the last Paul Pry, and as Pardy had threatened some time since to show him up in the paper, and as he had been seen in the office of that paper, in the Strand, he had no doubt he was the writer of that article. Somebody mentioned his (Davis') name in the station-house, and Mr. Pardy looking round drew himself up and said, "I knew this fellow when he lived in the rules of the Bench, and when I lived where I pleased." Aggravated by this expression, and under the conviction that he was the writer of the vile slanders in the Paul Pry, he instantly struck him.
Pardy said that he had lost 500£ by the two Prys, and it was a mere pretext for ill-using him to allege that he was a writer in such papers. He was a cripple in both feet and both hands, and unable to write or fight, and he therefore required that the defendant should be held to bail to appear at the sessions.
Sir P. LAURIE asked the clerk to the solicitor who was watching the complainant's case if he was solicitor to the Paul Pry also.
The clerk said he was not.
Sir P. LAURIE observed, that the defendant concluded Pardy was the writer of the libellous article, but he might be labouring under a misapphrehension.
Davis said he thought not.
Sir P. LAURIE said the defendant had no doubt broken the law, but if he had received great provocation, it would make a great difference in the judgment he should give. He would therefore adjourn the hearing until Saturday, to give the defendant an opportunity, if he could, of showing that his suspicions were well founded.
Pardy said he would not trouble himself to come again, but would indict the defendant.
Sir PETER intimated that this abandonment of the case would seem to result from a fear that the authorship of the article could be fixed on him. On which,
Pardy agreed that the hearing should be postponed.
I have so far not been able to find any further information on this case.