The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-20 00:00:00

WIIITECHURCII V. ITOLIVORTITY.

This was a question as to the right of the lord of the fee to
. enter and cut wood upon the copyholder's estate. There had
been various trials of the case, and the present motion appealed
from the certificate of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench,
which denied the lord's right ; the grounds of the judgment
being, that as the lord could not enter to dig for coal or to sink
mines, and as the tenant had as much and the same interest on
the trees as in the soil, the lord could not enter the copyhold
estate to cut down timber,
Mr, PEPYS traced the practices and doctrines respecting
copyholds, acted upon in the courts through the whole series of
precedents. He maintained, that as the origin of copyhold was
a sort of encroachment upon the will of the lord, so the law had
always been cautious of assuming any right for the tenant over
the appurtenances of the soil which were inconsistent with an
estate for life. Ile showed from the cases, that the right of the
lord to the timber had always been assumed, whether in those
which went to stay the waste of the tenant or to hinder the
lord from taking so much as to leave not enough for the tenant's
bote and estovers, and the repairs of the estate. He showed
also, that in all the old cases, the authorities, together with the
very form of the pleadings, implied the right of the lord to the
timber. This was tlae condition of the law until the case of
Asmead and Ranger (10 East), when the judgment of the
Court of King's Bench, and that of the House of Lords upon
a subsequent appeal, overturned the whole series of cases. He
maintained still, that the particular case must be considered
with respect to its particular merits, as it could not be sufficient
to set aside the force-of all the doctrines, customs, forms, and
authorities, by which it was established, that the lord might cut
his own trees, provided he left enough for repairs.
Mr. PRESTON followed on the same side, and argued, that
as the tenant could have no right to the timber, the Lord must
have the right, unless it were contended to common reason, that
the Lord could be dispossessed of that which he had no intention
to give away, because he had given away something else. If
the tenant had no right to cut the timber, the Lord must have
the right, or the timber must be left to rot on the ground.--
Wherever the law allowed right, it furnished a remedy: The
Lord must have the right of entry to cut, or his right to the tim.
ber would avail him nothing.
Mr. Smarm I.T. supported the decision of the Judges, that
neither the copyholder nor the Lord of the fee could cut timber
except by mutual consent. There were many, rights which the
law could not enable the owners to exercise. A parson might
work a mine already opened, belonging to his glebe, but he
could not open a new one; yet he was seized of the minerals as
part of his glebe. A landlord had the right to the timber, but

he could not enter to cut it unless that right was reserved in the
deeds, or by special custom of the manor.
Mr. FARRER followed on the same side.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it would be impossible
for him to give judgment without knowing what was upon the
record of the Court of King's Bench in the case of Ashmead v.
Ranger, and also what were the questions put to the Judges in
the House of Lords upon the same case. If it should turn out
to be the same case as this, he must be ruled by the judgment
of the House of Lords. They were at liberty to correct their
judgment--he was not.
The Solicitors in the suit were directed to inspect the record
of the Court of King's Bench, and his Lordship undertook to
have the journals and calendars of the House of Lords examin-
ed, to see what questions had been put to the Judges in that
case.

On the application of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
The LORD CHANCELLOR agreed that the Court should s
on Tuesday next, that being the day before Christmas day.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEc. 19.

No case of public interest was heard to-day before his Honour
the Vice-Chancellor.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 19.
_ THE KING V. WILLIAII MEAD.

This was the first of a series of eighteen indictments preferred
against the witnesses for the Crown on the trial of six informa-
tions in the Exchequer against parties accused of being en-
gaged in a smuggling transaction on the 20th of August, 11320.
This indictment was preferred by James Law, who was alone
acquitted on the informations, the other defendants on that
occasion being convicted. The case on the behalf of the pro-
secution was conducted by Mr. D.F. JONES and Mr. CIIIF TY,
and the defence by she ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the SOLICI-
TOR-GENERAL, Mr GURNEY, Mr. CLARKE, and Mr.
WALTON.
Mr. CHITTY stated the substance of the charge as it appear-
ed on the record.
Mr. D. F. JONES opened the case on the part of the prose-
cution. The evidence on which the assignments of perjury
were framed, was given against the prosecutor, Mr. Jas. Law,
on the trial of an information in the Exchequer, at the Sittings
after Last Trinity Term. On that occasion it fell to his lot to
conduct the defence, and therefore the arduous duty of leading
the case for the prosecution now devolved on him, which he felt
the more, as it was an exception to the usual habits of his pro-
fessional life. The offence which was charged on Mr. Law
was, that he had been concerned in a smuggling transaction as
long ago as August, 1820. In that month, a vessel, consigned
from Flushing, laden with tobacco and gin, effected a landing
beneath rocks called the Salt Pans, on the eastern coast of York-
shire. For a participation in this offence, Law was proceeded
against in the Exchequer ; and Wm. Mead, the present defend-
ant, was examined as a witness for the Crown, when he gave the
testimony for which he was this day to answer. Mead then de-
posed, that on the night of Sunday, Aug. 20, about 11 o'clock,
Mead was present at the Salt Pans; that John Scott, his son-
in-law, was with him ; that they came with three horses,
and took away a quantity of tobacco and spirits. Now it was
true that Law was near the spot ; true also that on part of that
evening he was from home ; anti these circumstances formed
the basis on which the informers had worked, and on which
they depended for success. It would appear, however, that on
the day in question he went as usual to the parochial chapel,
and after the service was over rode with the clergyman to his
own home at Sealby, about two miles distant. He then returned
to the house of a man named Gibson, with whom he had en-
gaged to drink tea, and there remained with two men, named
Haxby and Baker, until 10 o'clock in the evening. He had ap-
pointed two men; named Hogg and Crouchy, to meet him at this
place,and accordingly they joined him as he wasleaving Gibson's
premises. With them he walked to his own house, and then, after
he had supped, prepared to set out for a purchase of wood which
he had made at a place called Hamley Wood, about thirty
miles distant, and prepared a cart with a load of wool, which
he was to leave on his way at Mr. Grason's, at Pickering.
About two in the morning, he and Hogg set out with the wag-
gon, and arrived at Pickering, where they saw Grason, who
would be called as a witness, and to whom full credit might be
given, as he was a respectable tradesman entirely uninterested
in the transaction. In addition to this evidence, Scott, the son-
in-law of the prosecutor, who was sworn by Mead to be at the
Salt Pans with Law, would be called, and would postively
state that he never was there, but that being in a state of infirm
health at the time had retired early to rest. Unfortunately it was
impossible for Law to call Gibson, for he died suddenly the
very week after the transaction ; neither could he call the wife
and children of Scott, as the children were too/young to be exa-
mined, and the mother could not leave them to undertake so long
a journey. In cases of this kind, it was not unusual to deprive
parties, charged with partaking in the same offence of the benefit
of each other's testimony, by including them allin one indictment
for conspiracy; but, in case, the prosecutor had felt it right to
prefer separate indictments, so that all the defendants in the
other prosecutions might be witnesses in this ; that he dial-
lenged the Counsel for the defendants to call them. In con-
clusion he adverted to the array of Counsel on the other side;
all the power of the Crown seemed put forth to protect the de-
fendant; but he trusted that if his guilt should appear, the
Jury would give such verdict as would satisfy public justice.
Mr. Jenkins, a short-hand writer, proved the evidence given
by Mead at the trial. It was substantially that Law came with
Scott between ten and eleven on the evening of the 20th of
August, 1820, to the Salt-pans, with three horses, and that they
took away with them 21 half ankers of gin, and two bales o -
tobacco.

Mr. Law, the prosecutor, gave an aecount of his proceedings,
similar to that stated by Mr. Jones. He positively swore that
he was not on the spot on the night in question, and that he
was not on that night concerned in any smuggling transaction ;
but he admitted that in 1818, he had been convicted on an in-
formation for smuggling.
To support his testimony in its several parts, the Rev. Mr.
Grundon, curate of Selby, Haxby, Crouchby, Hagg, Grason,
and the other parties alluded to, were called, who deposed to
the several portions of the night which Law passed in their
company. John Scott, the son-in-law, positively denied being
present at the Rocks, and, on cross-examination, also denied
having absconded to avoid being taken into custody.
111 r. SOLICITOR-GENERAL (the Attorney General having
retired) addressed the Jury for the defendant. He reminded
them that on the trial in the Exchequer, when the Jury had to
decide on conflicting testimony, they were bound to acquit the
defendant if they entertained any doubt of his guilt ; and
therefore it did not follow from that verdict, that they were
convinced of the falsehood of the charge. He proceeded to
comment on the evidence, contending that it was improbable
and inconsistent, as far as it was material, and that the
greater part of it was quite consistent with the prosecutor's
guilt. It was true that he went to church ; true that he
drank tea at Gibson's; true that he remained there till 10 o'clock
at night, but the question was, what he did after that period ?
Now to shew that lie was at Salt Pans, which were very near
Gibson's house, he could call not only all the witnesses who had
given evidence in the Exchequer, but others who had been dis-
covered since the trial, and he would contradic the principal
witnesses for the prosecution on collateral points of their testi-
mony, which would show them to be undeserving of credit. In
conclusion lie observed that he felt no peculiar interest in the
result of the proceeding ; he was an officer of the Crown, but
he was also an officer of the public, and could have no desire
that the crime of perjury should escape. He only wished that
the case should be well sifted and fully considered, and when
lie had seen this done to the best of his power lie should leave
the decision in their hands.

Mr. Tauvern, a shorthand writer, was called to correct an
alleged error in Mr. Jenkin's notes of Mead's evidence, as to
the time when he said that Law came to the Rocks. This wit-
nes, understood Mead to fix it between 11 and 12, instead of
between 10 and 11.

John Holmes, Thomas Walker, Jonathan Bailey, Thomas
Scott, and Robert Mead, all defendants in other indictments,
swore in the most positive manner that Law and Scott were
both present at the Bocks, between 11 and 12 in the evening,
and returned with three hopes laden with gin and tobacco.—
John Donkes gave evidence to the same effect. John Dobson
deposed that he called on Sunday evening at Mead's to buy gin,
and waited his return, when he came with gin, and sold him a
large quantity. John Robison and Robert Robison, of York,
and William Brown, said that they were at the Salt Pans, and
heard a man called ,aw, but did not know him. Mr. Hayes,
a naval officer, proved the seizure of 113 tubs of gin, which
were concealed among the rocks, and an attempt to rescue a boy,
who was found guarding them. Witnesses were also called to
prove that Scott ran away when the officers came to apprehend
him.

In reply, several witnesses were called by the prosecutor's
Counsel to discredit Walker, Thomas Scott, Robert Mead, and
Bailey, who swore that they would not believe them on their
oaths.

Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied on this evidence.
Mr. D. F. JONES replied on the whole case.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE began to sum up the evidence
at a quarter before nine o'clock, and completed his charge at
three minutes before ten. In the course of his remarks he ob-
served, that it was painful for him to say, that on one side or
the other there must have been very wilful and abundant per-
jury. He left it entirely with the. Jury, to say to which side the
truth belonged.
The Jury consulted together in the box until 12 minutes
after 10 o'clock, and then desired leave to withdraw.
Mr. CLARKE applied to the Court to have the witness Scott
detained for the other causes, in case they should come on.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE directed that the Habeas Cor-
pus should be brought to him at the sitting of the Court to-

morrow morning, that it might be endorsed for that purpoSe'
His Lordship then retired from the Court.
The Jury returned at 20 minutes before twelve o'clock, and
pronounced a verdict of Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEc. 19.
Sittings in London,
(Before Lord Chief Justice DALLAS, and a Special Jury.)

TOVEL V. BOWKER.

Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN (with whom were Serjeant HIII
LOCK and Mr. CAMPBELL) stated this case to the Jury. It
was an action to recover the value of the brig Findon, which
had been run down at sea, by the brig Blossom, in conse-
quence (as was alleged) of the negligence of the crew of the
latter. The defendant was the owner of the Blossom, and was
answerable for the conduct of the crew, who were to be con-
sidered his servants. It would appear that on the 20th of
April, the Findon sailed from Sunderland with a cargo of coals.
At about half-past two the next morning the Blossom bore
down, and for want of a careful look-out on the part of the crew
struck the Findon, which almost immediately went down with
the shock. The crew were saved by getting on hoard the Fin-
don. Witnesses would be called who would prove that the ac-
cident was wholly owing to the negligence of the Blossom's
crew. If that were established to the satisfaction of the Jury,
they would find a verdict for the plaintiff: the amount would
not be disputed.
The mate of the Findon was called, and his evidence went to
show that the accident occurred by the negligence of the Bios,
sem': crew. Had they attended to the call of this witness, the
accident might have been avoided. The Blossom had a light
on her bow : the Findon had one in the binnacle. Several of
the Findon's crew were called, who corroborated this testimony.
Mr. Serjeant LENS (with whom was Serjeant TADDY) con-
tended for the defendant, that the circumstance was not owing
to the negligence of either, but was to be attributed to one of
those accidents which could not be prevented by human 5ki11...-.
He would call several witnesses who would prove that the night
was extremely dark, and that it was impossible to discern a ship
at twice her length a-head. It would also be proved that if the
Findon had a light in her bow, she would have been seen by
the Blossom, which would have thereby been enabled to avoid
her. If those facts were clearly proved, as he was instructed to
state they would be, he was satisfied that the Jury would find
for the defendants.

A great number of witnesses, consisting of some of the Blot.,
som's crew, and several captains in the coal trade, were called to
prove that it was a very dark night ; that a ship could not be
seen at more than twice her length a-head ; that it was the
custom in fleets of colliers, for all ships to carry lights on dark
nights; that the Findon had no such light; and that if she
had, the accident might, in all probability, have been pre-
vented.

Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN replied to this evidence.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the Jury, after consulting
together fur a few minutes, returned a verdict for the defendant.

BOXING.

BATTLE BETWEEN GRANGER THE NAVIGATOR AND

MATHEWS THE WARMINSTER MAN.
This match, for 20 sovereigns aside, took place on Heazely
Common, six miles in Strathfieldsay, Hants (the seat of the
Duke of WELLIGNGTN), on Wednesday afternoon, some ene-
mies having bivouacked at Eversley, the spot first fixed upon,
who it was known meant mischief. The men had proved them-
selves good twelve stone ruffians, who only wanted some of the
Fires' Court tactics. Spring was waited for to second Matthews,
but he did not come to time, and young Buckhorsc supplied his
place. Bellamy, the cricketer, picke up Granger. A very
merry sporting battle followed.
In the first round both showed much gaiety, and their too
great anxiety for flooring prevented mischief. They threw their
blows away, and Granger was thrown in wrestling, at which
both were expert.
2. Matthews was hit hard with the right hand on the right
ear, which sent him away, but he did not go down; he reco-
vered himself, went boldly up to his adversary's head and drew
his cork. The claret flew merrily, and Granger felt as if not
to know whether he had lost the prominent feature of his head.
This was a symptom of the white feather, but he soon put that
idea on one side.
3. A gay fighting round of nine minutes duration, with
equal advantages until the last of it. Give and take at the
scratch was the order of rallying, until both were hit to a drun-
ken stand still. They separated, and after piping a bit they
unmurzkd again, and contended for the scratch, inch by inch,
until Matthews was floored by a heavy blow on the throat
which turned the fight full 2 to 1 against him.
4,5, and 6, More skirmishing and wrestling for second wind.
7. Another hard fought round, in which Granger led, and
floored his adversary again by a body hit. It was father Thames
to a duck pond.
In the Bth round Matthews made a gallant rush in the forlorn
hope, and laid his adversary's eye-lash open, but it was too late;
Both down from a close.

9. Matthews was knocked down at going in.
10. This round settled the battle in 3(1 minutes. Matthews
was thrice repulsed at going up to his adversary's head, and at
length he was dropped by a blow on the temple, and was beat
out of time. Granger, although the winner, had quite enough
for a game one.

lIICKMAN'S (the Gas Light Man) FUNERAL.
Yesterday morning, between eleven and twelve o'clock, a vast
concource of persons assembled in Aldersgate and Jewin-streets
to witness the funeral of Hickman, who unfortunately lost his
life on his return, a few days since, from the fight of Josh.
Hudson and Shelton. At twelve o'clock the funeral procession
commenced from the Adam and Eve, in Jewin-street, the
house of Hickman. The pall was supported by Josh. Hudson
and Shelton ; Tom Belcher and Harmer ; and Randall anti
Turner. The father of the Gas, his brother, and some other
relatitives,were the prncipal mourners. The procession was filled
up by Mr. Walters, Toth Owen, Scroggins, Parish, Oliver,
Jem Bunn, Purcell, Powell (of the Fives Court,) Bill Daviec,
Baxter, and Pierce Egan. On the coffin, the plate stated
Hickman to be in his 27th year. He was buried in the
Church-yard in Little Britain. The Clergyman, at the
conclusion of the Funeral service, informed the congregation,
that on Sunday afternoon next, it was his intention to preach
a sermon on the unfortunate deaths of two persons belonging
to that parish (alluding to Messrs. Roe and Hickmen). The
Church-yard was filled with spectators. The grave of Hick-
man was 18 feet deep. On the ground we observed, Bit-
ton, Bill Eales, Jack Carter, George Head, &c., who were not
in time to join in the Procession. The crowd in the streets was
immense ; and lots of Amateurs of the highest respectability
were among the spectators, paying the last tribute to the re-
' mains of this extraordinary man in tip Pugilistic 'World. The
windows also of the houses were Btowded with females, so
great an interest did the funeral of the Gat Light Mat;
excite in the minds even of strangers, and persons unconnected
with the Fancy. Upon the whole, it could not have been con-
ducted in a more respectable manner. The Beadles of the
Parish attended, and the assistance of several Police-officers
was necessary to protect the mourners from the great pressure
of the crowd. The Champion of England was prevented from
attending as one of the pall-bearers, in consequence of a restive
herse, on the preceding evening, near Stockwell, having thrown
him off, and fallen upon him. Cribb was taken up for dead;
and he did not come to his senses for half an hour afterwards.
On medical advice being sent for, he was bled, and conveyed
home to his bouse. The Champion is pronounced out of danger,
but seriously bruised about his shoulders and thighs.