The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-06 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT, DURHAM, ITTARcu 2.
DOE DEM. TAYLORSON V. CULLEY.
The Court was engaged a great part of the day in the in-
vestigation of the facts of this case, which, however, finally
resolved itself into a question of law. The action was
brought to recover a portion of the Denton estate, near Dar.
lington, and it finally appeared that the plaintiff is the re-
presentative of a party who, in 1799, was tenant in common
of the estate in question to the extent of one-third, the two
other thirds hav►ng at that time become the property of the
defendant, who has since continued in the unmolested pos-
session and the receipt of the rents and profits of the whole.
The Jury found for the plaintiff, subject to a bill of excep-
tions with regard to his Lordship's ruling on the ( ffeet of
the late statute 3 and 4 Wm. IV., c. 27, so far as it affects
tenancies in common.

CROWN COURT, 111.12wn 3.
John Dawson was indicted for setting fire to a haystack,
the property of James Hunter of Stockton, on the 17th of
August last. The haystack in question was one of four
situated in a field a considerable way down a lane, called
Lonesome-lane, which runs at right angles to another named
Yarm-lane, in the suburbs of the town of Stockto.o. Somewhat
nearer the angle formed by the two lanes than the situation of
the stacks is a small field called Wilkinson's field, and about the
same place commences a footpath which, cutting off the angle,
runs from Lonesome-lane into Yarm-lane, in the immediate
neighbourhood of a public-house called the Brunswick Arms.
In the field with the stacks is a small cottage, in which the
father-in-law of the prosecutor resided. On- the night in
question, at nine o'clock in the evening, he entered the field
to go to l,is cottage, and fastened the gate, staple and bolt,
behind him. At that time the stacks, which stand close by
the gate, were all safe. About a quarter past eleven a Mr.
Haddock, a butcher in Stockton, was proceeding along Lone-
some-lane, for the purpose of putting his pony in Wilkinson's
field, where he bad purchased a right of pasture. He heard,
as he closed the gate, the footsteps of some one approaching
along the lane, in the direction of Stockton, and immediately
afterwards his attention was attracted by smoke rising appa-
rently from the prosecutor's stacks. Flames almost immediately
burst out, and he then saw a man (the same, he supposed,
whose footsteps he had already heard coming towards him,
and between him and the burning hay.) He immediately
shouted out, " Bless me, man, do you not see those stacks
burning behind you ?" The person, who afterwards appeared
to be the prisoner, said, " Where, where ?" and, turning im-
mediately, ran, with Mr. Haddock close behind him, in the
direction of the flames. Mr. Haddock laid his hand
on the prisoner's shoulder, and said, " How did this
happen ?" The prisoner made no reply, but conti-
nued looking at the fire. The prisoner, then, at Mr.
Haddock's instigation, proceeded to the Brunswick Arms,
across the path already mentioned, both running. On enter-
ing the Brunswick arms the prisoner sat down, and Mr. Had.
dock then gave him in custody to the landlord, and a constable
was sent for. The prisoner was examined, but nothing calcu-
lated to excite suspicion was at first found upon him. His hat
with other things was handed to the wife of the constable to
be locked up for safe custody, and she, on a more close exa-
mination of it, for the purpose of discovering the name of the
party, found a piece of match, partly consumed, between the
substance of the hat and the lining. The next morning also
a bunch of matches was observed by a person passing to be
lying beside a stile, on the footpath already mentioned, by
which the prisoner and Mr. Haddock had crossed to the Bruns-
wick Arms.

It did not appear that the prisoner was at all acquainted with
the prosecutor, or had any enmity against him. He was ap-
prenticed to a mast-maker, and also engaged in salmon fish-
ing upon the Tees, in which latter occupation, being much out
at night, ho was in the habit of carrying with him the materials
for striking a light, and the matches were usually placed in
his hat.
The Jury found the prisoner Not Guilty.
NISI PRIUS.—WALKER AND ANOTHER V. RICHARDSON.
This was an action to try the right of the Bishop of Dur-
ham, through his lessees, the plaintiffs, to take certain tolls
called anchorage and plankage within the port of Stockton. Ac-
cording to the evidence adduced for the plaintiffs, it appeared
that for a very long period these tolls have been levied on all
ships loading and unloading within the limits of the port of
Stockton ; the sum levied upon each British vessel being 2s.
6d. direct, and on each foreign vessel ss. The toll of plankage
apparently taking its origin in very early times, for the use of
a plank, which, in the absence of the more modern accommo-
dation of quays and wharfs, was used to facilitate the opera.
tions of loading and unloading. It appears that 1620 since
there is a series of leases by which the Bishop has been in the
habit of letting these tolls at the old rent of 20s. The earliest
leases were for one-and.twenty years, and were described as
demising on the part of the Bishop " all the anchorage and
plankage, and all sums of money, duties, and benefices arising
from them from all vessels arriving in the port or creek of
Stockton." At this period Stockton was but a member of
the large port of Newcastle. This lease appears to have
been surrendered in 1634, and a new one granted from
time to time. The language of the demise is changed, and
described by the Bishop as " all that his port, haven, and
()reek of Stockton, specifying the limits thereof, and demising
all his anchorage therein." Under leases of this kind, down
to 1829, the subsisting lease the tolls have regularly been
taken, not only within the manor of Stockton, of which the
Bishop is Lord, or on that side of the river, only which bounds
the palatinate ; but at Middleborough on the opposite side of
the river, at Yarm and Cargo-fleet further up. But the in-
stances in which these dues were proved to have been paid at
the two latter places were but few.
Mr. ALEXANDER contended that the whole claim was a gra-
dual usurpation on the part of the Bishop.
The Jury found for the plaintiff.