The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-08-25 00:00:00

in Monument-yard, haring a manufactory in Webber-street, near
the Coburg Theatre. The plaintiff had been in their employment
as foreman of the works, and was allowed to reside with his wife
and family in • dwelling attached to the manufactory in Webber-
street On the part of the plaintiff it W;11 insisted that his engage- ,
meat with the defendants was yearly, and that he was entitled to a
monthly notice, in order legally to determine his service. In
i January last, the defendants suddenly dismissed him from their
' service, on the ground that he hail spoiled some hate which rem
irtrusted to hint to make. A negoeiation was opened for the re-
newal of his engagement, but the terms proposed could not be
airreett upon. On the day mentioned in the declaration, namely,
the 2d February, the plaintiff came to the premises in Webber-
street, for the perms^ of having some rept nation resprctthg his
sudden dismissal. The defendants and Mills, a constable, were in
the house, and as sum 1111 the plaintiff cane in. the latter palled
out a pair of Muth-tiff% and threatened to put them on, and
take hint before a Magistrate, if he did not immediately quit
the house. The plaintiff said he was willing to go wherever
the defendants pleased. They Ilrocceded to lay held of him to
force him out. Ile held the door in his hand, when the con-
stable rapped Mm over the knuckles with the handcuffs, and
made hint leave his hold, and, with the assistance of Mr.
Ransford and Mr. Higgs, he was turned off the premises. The
plaintiff's wife and her children were turned out of the house in
two nr three days afterwards; the plaintiff, however. was permitted
to remove his household furniture without molestation. Under
these circumstances the present action was brought. The suhstan-
tial issue in the cause was, whether the plaintiff had been employed
u a weekly or yearly servant by the defendants. It us, insisted,
on their behalf, that he was merely a weekly servant, at a salary of
3/. a week, with the use of the dwelling-house at tit: futory, so
long as his service continued, and that he had received a fortnight's
notice that his services were na longer necessary, and which had ex-
pired at the time when he obtruded himself on the defendant's pre-
mises, and provoked the assault complained of.
Witnesses were called in defence to prove the special pleas.
The case went to the Jury under the Learned Judge's directions,
and they found their verdict for the defendants.

CROWN SIDE.
Erfore Mr. Jounce Hu SI OCOU.
MANSLAUGHTER.
Jltnes Miohnel Rowe, and Affred Townsend, were in-
dined for feloniously killing and slaying John Oxley, at Mitcham.
It appeared in evidence that the prisoners and the decefised had
been drinking at a public-house at Mitcham. The deceised be.
came quarrelsome, struck the prisoner Sewell, and challenged him
co tight. The latter said he would rather treat him to is pot of
beer than fight, and endeavoured to pacify him ; but in vain. He
agaipstruck Sewell, who then agreed to go into a neighbouring
field, and settle the matter by fair combat. The other prisoners
i were the seconds respectively on the occasion. In the first round
• the deceased received a blow in the throat which was mortal. Be
fell senseless on the ground. The moment Sewell heard that the
unfortunate man was insensible, he run for surgical aid, and did
every thing that kindness and humanity could suggest. Ile n.
pressed great concern for what had happened, and surendcred
himself into custody. The deceased died in consequence of the
blow he received. On opcnir.g his head, there was a considerable
quantity of entravasatecl blood suffused on the brain, which, in the
opinion or the surgeon, caused death.
The case was opened with great forbearance towards the prisoners
by Mr. ADOLPH
The prisoners were defended by Mr. Tri ESIG it.
Witnesses were called to their character. and they were spoken
of as young men of temperate and humane dispositions.
The Jury acquitted the seconds, but found Sewell Guilty,
and he was sentenced to one month's imprisonment in the County
Gaol.

James flornetl, Richard Smite, John Dilli,., Thomas Smith,
James Mills. and Alfred /.each, were indicted for feloniously
swaling at Ileddington, from a bleaching ground, forty pieces of
printed muslin, the property of Samuel 3lakepeace.
Mr. not-Ls:OlD and Mr. LAW conducted the prosecution, and
the prisoners were severally defended by Mr. AWDRI:WS. Mr.
Anoirm• 9, Mr. BIOIMHICE, Mr. THESIGIA, and Mr.
lluTcutwunr. -

It appeared in evidence, that forty pieces of muslin were taken
from the bleaching green of Mr. Makepeace, who is an extensive
bleacher, residing at Ileddington, on the night of the WI of
April, and that two officers of Union-hall being employed to trace
di: robbery, proceeded at an early hour in the morning of the 27th
to a house at find's-row, Islington, where the prisoner Mills lived,
and where the greater part of the property was discovered, and all
the prisoners, with the exception of Leach, found. It was further
'hewn, that all the prisoners, with the exception of Dillon, were
in company at a publie-E•euse in Mitcham on the night of the rob_
bay. It was admitted that there was no evidence to affect Leach, I
land a very clear alibi wax established for Dillon, by the landlord al
a public-house at Islington, confirmed by a gentleman who lodged
in the house, both of whom proved that be slept at the house every
night front the 20th to the 25th of April. liaised received an ex-
cellent character from several respectable witnesses.
The Jury Acquitted Dillon. Barnett- and Leash, and found
Miles, Smith, and Thomas Smith Guitty, but recommended the
last to money, on account of his extreme youth.
Miles and the elder Smith were sentenced to seven years trans-
portation, and the younger Smith to one year's confinement in the
!louse of Correction.