The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-29 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT, KINGSTON. March 28.
Upon the first day of the assize a gentleman named
Fuller, who is the owner of extensive property at Rip-
ley, near Cobham, surrenthred to take his trial upon an
indictment charging him with manslaughter. He was
also charged With the same offence upon the Coroners
ir quisition, but the defendant had ben at large upon
heavy recognizances.

In the oourse of the day the witnesses went before
the Grand Jury, who ignored the bill.
Mr. CLARKSON, who was instructed to defend Mr.
Fuller, applied to the Court on Wednesday, and stated
that the Grand Jury having ignored the bill presented
to them, nothing remained but the Coroner's inquisi•
tion to be disposed of. With respect to that form of
charge, he had to take a legal objection, which, in his
opinion must inevitably prove fatal. The inquisition
imputed to the defendant that he had inflicted divers
ruptures and fractures upon the head of the deceased of
which he died ; but omitted altogether the word " mor-
tal." He, therefore, submitted to the Court, that in
point of law the inquisition was bad, and could not be
sustained,

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE having looked at the inqui-
sition, concurred in opinion with Mr. Clarkson, and
therefore directed an acquittal.
_ _

Mr. CLAItKSON then said he felt it to be a duty he
owed to his client, who was a young gentleman of great
respectability and considerable property in the neigh-
bourhood of Ripley, to state, that if the case had gone
to the Jury he should have made out a satisfactory
answer to it. The fact was that the deceased was a
young person, a servant to the defendant, and the
alleged injury merely consisted of a slap on the head,
but owing to the head being in a state of disease, of
which fact the defendant was in entire ignorance, it led
to effects which caused the death of the deceased : the
blow, however, was only such reasonable correction as
the law allowed a master to administer to a servant,
and there could be no pretence fur charging him with
the offence imputed to him.
The defendant was then discharged.
The case appeared to create a great deal of in-
terest. A great number of gentlemen were in at-
tendance on his behalf.

CURIOUS CHARGE OF MISDEMEANOR.—The Rev.
William Newlands, James Spicks, and George Chandler,
were indicted for a misdemeanor, in making a forcible
entry into, and demolishing certain premises, situate in
West-square, in the parish of St. George the Martyr,
Southwark.

Messrs. CLARKSON and CHAMBERS appeared for
the prosecution. The reverend defendant conducted
his own case.

Mr. CRARK3ON said the prosecution was instituted
by a gentleman named Holmes, residing in \Vest-square,
Lambeth, and within a short distance of the defendant
Newlands. Mr. He;lmes was in possession of a certain
stable and chaise-house, near his premises, to which the
defendant laid some claim ; and in the evening
of the 27th of June, during the absence of Mr. Ilolmes
and his lady, several men were observed to go to the de-
fendant Newland's house, armed with pick-axes, saws,
and other implements, and from thence they proceeded
to the premises of Mr. Holmes, where the men pro-
ceeded to pull down and entirely demolish the stable
and coach-Louse, and they then fastened up the outside
gates. The servant of Mr. Holmes interfered at the
commencement of the proceedings, and begged the
parties not to persevere in the work of destruction in
the absence of her master and mistress, but the defend-
ant Newlands told them not to pay any attention to
her, and encouraged them to persevere and remained
upon the spot until they had completely destroyed the
premises. The defendants Spinks and Chandler were
two of the men acting under Mr. Newland's orders
in the work of destruction, and he was not in-
structed to press for a verdict against them
under those circumstances. The Learned Counsel
said that the reverend defendant appeared to imagine
that he had some legal claim to the property in ques-
tion, but his client, Mr. Holmes, had for a long period
been in possession of the property, and as he was in-
structed, was clearly the legal owner ; but, however
the case may be, he was prepared to contend that the
violent and outrages proceedings adopted by the de-
fendant to assert his supposed right, was entirely un-
justifiable, and could not be tolerated in a civilized Com-
munity. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to
state that an action of trespass arising out of the same
proceeding, had also been brought against the defendant
when the question as to the title would be properly
brought under discussion, and he was instructed to make
a proposition to the defendant that if he would plead
guilty to the present indictment, and enter into his own
recognizance, no further proceedings should be taken
until the question as to the title had been disposed of in
a Court of Law.

The defendant declined to accede to the proposition,
and evidence was in consequence adduced in support of
the statement made by Mr. Clarkson, and the facts as
detailed by him were proved by the witnesses.
The defendant made a long statement, in which he
contended that he had merely committed a simple tres-
pass with a view to try his right, and that it was not a
subject for a criminal indictment, and that an action
having been brought against him no steps, be submitted,
ought to have been taken until the judgment of the
Court as to who was rightfully entitled to the pro-
perty, had been obtained.

The Court was occupied with the diTosal of the
case upwards of eight hours, and the Jury ultimately
returned a verdict of Guilty of a forcible entry against
Mr. Newlands, and acquitted the other defendants.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE then asked the defendant
whether the nature of the action to be tried was such
as to set at rest the question of the title, and on being
informed that it was, he expressed an opinion that the
judgment should be respited.
The defendant complained of the verdict, and inti
mated his opinion that it was illegal.
The Foreman of the Jury said that the Jury had re-
turned a verdict consistent with what they considered
their duty, and complained of the remark made by the
defendant.

Mr. CLARKSON suggested, that under all the circum-
stances the defendant ought to be called upon to enter
into recognizances to appear to receive judgment when
called upon, with a view to prevent any further breach
of the peace._

The defendant struck the table violently, and ex
claimed, " I would sooner die first."

Mr. CLARKSON hoped the Court would not allow the
defendant to leave the Court without doing so, and said
that unless some restriction was placed upon him, a
serious breach of the peace might ensue.

The defendant then exclaimed, that in his opinion
the indictment was bad, and that the whole proceedings
were illegal.
Mr. CLARKSON said that the Court did not desire to
hear his opinion as to the legality or illegality of its
proceedings.
The defendant was then about to make some further
remarks, and said that the prosecutor had, in his own
pleas, admitted that he had no other:title to the property
in question, but that of an adverse possession for a period
of twenty years.

Mr. CLARKSON said it was the privilege of a person
who conducted his own case to make statements and
assertions which no Learned Counsel, employed in his
behalf, would dare to make in the presence of a Judge.
After some further conversation, the defendant con-
sented to enter into his own recognizances in 80/., and
find two sureties in 40/. each ; and it was arranged that
he should appear on Siturday morning for that purpose.