The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-20 00:00:00

110 ME CIRCUIT.

ClorLDWown, JULY 17.
The Summer Assizes for this county commenced here this morn- ,
ing. before Mr. Baron Graham.. on the Civil Side, and Mr. Justice ,
1101royd, on the Crown Side. In both Courts the business is con-
sitierable. The cause list contains an entry of 42 cases, and in the
gaol calendar are the names of 142 prisoners, the great bulk of
whom have, however, been committed for trifling offences.
Clt OSV N SIDE.
TIIE XI/40 V. JOSEPH NELSON.
This an indictment against the defendant for n misdemeanor,
in receiving four pockets of hops, the property of Messrs. Price
and Thomas, of the borough of Southwark, knowing them to have
been stolen.
Mr. AnoLettus and Mr. THESTGER conducted the prosecu-
tion, and Mr. asnnEws and Mt. anonym:a the defence.
The transaction out of which this prosecution arose has already
been repeatedly the subject of publication. The prosecu•ors,
Messrs. Price avd Thomas, are extensive hop-factors in the Bo-
rough. They had been robbed of hops to a great extent, by a
warehouseman, named James Foy, who entered their service in
11124, and continued in it until the spring of 1021 Foy was pro-
secuted at the last Winter Assizes for this county, for stealing
seven pockets of hops, their property, and another person was in-
dicted with him for receiving the same, khowing them to have been
stolen. The former was acquitted, but the latter was found guil'y.
After his acquittal, Foy made a full confession to his injured toas-
ters of all the robberies he had committed, and gave information
against the defendant Nelson, a miller in the Borough, that lie had
knowingly received of him, at different times, four pockets of hops,
their property. He also gave information of the like nature against
three other persons, as receivers of stolen hops. The present pro-
secution was, therefore, instituted against the defendant. In sup-
port of the case, Foy was the principal witness, and he swore posi-
tively
that he had, at different times, delivered the hops in question
to the defendant, tit prices much below their real value, he know.
ing that they were the property of Messrs. Price and Thomas.
Some witnesses were called to confirm Foy in some particulars of
hi. story. In some of them he was completely contradicted, and
in others there was no confirmation of him whatever.
The Jury, under the advice of the Learned Judge, found the de-
fendant Not Guilty.
l Acquittals were then taken in favour of two other persons, who
• had been indicted on :oy's evidence for similar offences.
FORGERY.

Eliznireth Crittenden. a young w—o-m-iin- of respectable appearan cc
was indicted for feloniously uttering a forged 101. Bank of England
note, knowing it to be forged. On the arraignment, the prisoner
pleaded Guilty, in consequence of a private intimation that her life
would be spared. There were three other similar charges against
the prisoner. Sentence of death was recorded.
Mr. GURNEY appeared for the Bank of England, and Mr.
BBODBILK for the prisoner.
CIVIL SIDE.
BATSON V. MEREFIET.D.

This was an action for an illegal and excessive distre.ss.
11Ir. fir nwEr was for the plaintiff, and it appeared that the
plaintiff was tenant to the defendant of a house and premises.
Rent having become due to the amount of 71., the plaintiff tendered
to the defendant in its discharge the sun, of Ili., and a receipt fur
sewers' rate to the amount of It.. which he insisted was a land-
lord's tax, though levied on the tenant, under the provisions of a
local Act of Parliament, which declared that the rate might be
deducted from the landlord's rent. The defendant refused to make
the allowance, and levied a distress upon goods of the value of
nearly 100/.
The broker proved the levying of the distress, and that the de-
fendant had sdmitted to him beforehand that he had refused to
make the deduction for the sewers' rate.
Another witness, named Law, gave evidence to the same effect.
lie was cross.examined at considerable length by the defendant,
who conducted his case in person.
The defendant endeavoured to show that the plaintiff owed him
much more money than the amount of the goods levied, and con-
sequently that the action was not maintainable. Ile, however,
called no witnesses.
The Jury, under the Learned Judge's directions, found for the
plaintiff.

NORTHER N. CIRCUIT.

Yonx, JULY 18,

ANGEL V. ANGEL.
This cause was resumed at the sitting of the Court.
Mr. SCAU LET T. fur the demandant, commenced his address by
observing, thrt he should endeavour to narrow as much as possible
the evidence which it was his intention to offer ; and, indeed, his
Case would be much shortened by the evidence offered yesterday, as
that evidence, up to a certain point, was common to the cases of
both parties. Whatever might be the issue of the present case.
there was one thing of which lie was certain, and that was, that
the individual whom lie represented was entitled to the Angel
estates in the counties of Kent, F.,ses, and Berkshire; for the be-
quest in the testator's will to Brown was conditional only, and de-
pended upon the absence of any male heir in the family of Angel.
The bequest was first to the male heir of a particular branch, and
then, in case of failure of such heirs, to the family of Brown. A
point might, perhaps, afterwards he made on that ground ; but
with it be would not then trouble the Jetty, beettse he was afraid ft
would not avail him in this form of proceeding, where the deman-
dant claiea, not as male heir, but as heir at law. He could
not forbear mentioning, amongst the other advantages which
his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, had over him,
that he appeared for a client who possessed the sinews of war, and
therefore was not only able to engage the Attorney-General to or-
nament his cause, but also to take measures to procure evidence,
from which his (Mr. Scarlett's) client was debarred. The great
point in the case was, whether the father of the tenant had been
born in wedlock ? Of that his friends on the other side had been
aware. for they had wasted the greater part of the day in proving
that which would never have been disputed, and then at four
o'clock in the afternoon had invited the attention of the Jury, fa.
tigued as that attention at the time must have been, to the only real
queee ion b, fore them. There were three points which, on the be-
half of the demandant, it would be necessary for him to make out ;
Ist, That John Angel, the testator, had been seine' in fee of the
premises ; 2illy, That the demandant was descended front the an-
cestor of John Angel ; and, 3d, That the case made out on the
other side was not a genuine case, anti that Benedick Brown, the
grandfather of the tenant, had not been lawfully married to Pleydye
Brook at the time when the birth of the father of the tenant had
taken place. IVith respect to the seisin of the testator, he should
have less difficulty in proving it than his Learned Friends on the
other side anticipated. But if the Attorney-Generel felt so
great a confidence in his case as to imagine it incapable
of being overthrown, why did he not at once admit the seism of
John Angel, from whom his (the Attorney-General's) client de-
rived his descent? He should show the seisin in this was. The
estate in question consisted of a lighthouse, which had been built
originally on the property of William Angel, to whom, by letters
patent, Charles the Second had granted the power of levying a toll
upon all ships that passed. That property had been vested in Jus-
tinian, the grandfather of the testator, and from him descended to
the testator. The testator, as they had been told, had been a man
of secluded habits. In early life he had had the misfortune to kill
a boy. and had been tried for manslaughter and acquitted, and the
rental ;der of his life had been spent in solitude. During his lire,
therefore, he had been unwilling to lend himself to what the public ,
accommodation required. when, by the efflux of the river Humber, I
the lighthouse had been left in a situation in which it had been of
little use. A Mr. Thompson, who had owned one-third of the pro-
perty, finding John Angel untractable, had made application to
Parliament, and had procured an Act of Parliament, which, after
reciting the title of John, had authorised 'Thompson to pledge the
lighthouse, for the purpose of removing it, and had directed that,
after the mortgage had been satisfied, then the Angel share should
revert to that family. An effort had been made to pledge the pro-
petty, but ineffectually.. and accordingly they would find that, in
the following year, another Act had passed authorising the gentle-
men of the Trinity 'louse to build a new lighthouse. Sonic doubt
had arisen whether a Mr. Constable, the lord of the manor,
hail not been entitled to the soil between high and low water
mark, and it had been agreed that 100/. a year should be given to I
Mr. Constable for the soil and manorial rights. The lighthouse
had then been changed to its present position. A provision had
been inserted in the Act of Parliament under which the change
had been effected, that when the Trinity House hail been reimbursed
the expenses of :he erection, the property should revert to Angel and
Thompson. They would therefore find in that Act of Parliament a
recognition of the title of John Angel, and if he (Mr. S.) chose'
to stop there, he should say that he had shown a sufficient seisin.
But he would carry the proof further. By the books of the Trinity
House it would be shown, that th it Company had been reimbursed
in 1777, and that a considerable sum of money had then been dun
to Angel. That balance had been paid to John Angel, and it
would he shown beyond all doubt that the rent due to Mr. Con-
stable had been paid by John Angel up to the day of his dealt.
These facts put' together would show, not only that John Angel
had been actually seised, but that he had been, up to the time of
his death, in actual possession of the rents and profits. He now
came to the second point, viz., the deduction of the pedigree of the
demandant from John Angel of Crowhurst. It was well for the
Attorney-General's client that the demandant had not discovered his
rights at the time when the estates of Jolla Angel were making that
atonement which his Learned Friend had described to the lawyers for
the aversion with which John Angel had al ways regarded them. They
might be aware a possession of 20 years was a bar to an ejectment,
and the demandant was therefore too late to try that species of trial.
It was true, as stated by the Learned Counsel on the other side, that
many ejectments had been biought against the present tenant, who
had always until then stood upon his possession. He (Mr. Scarlett)
well recollected that about the first time that he hail ever entered
Westminster-hall as a student. the Court had been considering an
application for a new trial in the case of an ejectment, Angel
Angel. In none of those cases had the pedigree of die cldinants
been made out : but in this case he should be able w mtikeout the
pedigree of the demandant beyond the slightest doubt. They
would remember that it had yesterday been proved that John
Angel, of Crowhurst, had left six eons. Amongst them had
been Thomas, from whom the present claimant deduced his
title, but he (Mr. Scarlet) would not then deny that William,
from whom the tenant claimed, (tad been the eldest son. They
would find that Thomas Angel had married Ann Lee, by
whom he had had a son, who had afterwards married Ann
Squire. The fruits of the last-mentioned marriage had been a son,
John Angel, who had married Ann Smith, and they had had a
son who had been the father of' the demandant. The identity of the
parties would be proved beyond the possibility of a doubt'. lie now
came to the third point, and that he acknowledged was the most
important. They would observe, that in order,to prove die de.