The Sun.
London, England, 1825-08-05 00:00:00

g.tlly subject the speaker to such summary punishment ; and
that the poor man remained in the cage severantomts.
The constable, however, who was called to
,provOlie•q%.t,,c*,
absolutely disproved it ;' for thttugh it appeared that the plaintiff;
had been detained for the night, the.witness swore that Cotta
merely .to prevent him from executing his thwat of further; in-
sulting Mr. Robinson, who gave no orders for his detentiop..
Upon this evidence the plaintiff' was nonsuited.
Nr.• CAMPBELL begged to state, that Mr. Robinson, who
was a gentleman more titan 70 years of age, so far fropv4i,tr4t,
ing the imprisonment of the plaintiff; interfered in lti6,faysmr,
and procured his release.

LUBCOTT rurLurs.

This was an action by Mr. Lurcott, a tradesman at.liconllu-
ster, who keeps a horse to be let to !tire, against .another trades-
man of the same town, for breach of contract relaiingto.the
horse. The plaintiff, by his &aeration, alleged that tht:d'e.
fendant hired his horse on .Friday, the lthh of February, to go
to a- place called Docklow, six miles froM Leominster, and to
ret:' rn ; instead of which, he drove him to Worcester and back.
a distance of twenty-six miles each way, and so improperly
treated him that he received considerable injury.. The defen-
dant pleaded a tender of 135., and the general issue' as to th:!
rest of the claim.

It appeared from the plaintiff's case, which was conducted
by Mr. RUSSELL and Mr. RYAN, that the contract was made
as stated in the pleadings, and that it was broken by the de-,
fendant driving the horse in a chaise, which cons,. yad his wife
and a friend to Worcester, and brought them back-on• the.Sa.
turday.evening. It was further sworn that the horse, when
returned, was lame, and was afterwards under the care of a
farrier for five weeks. The damage done to the horse cn the
cccasion was estimated by a witness at 101.
Mr. l'aimaps, for the defendant, said. that as to the con:
tract, the evidence was is sufficient to prove it that Ins. which
had been tendered was sufficient to compem ate for the use nutee
of the horse; that the injury, if any, was not attributable to
the defendant, but the plaintiff's own boy, who rode the horse
violently to water on the Sunday morning .and that 4 had ori-
ginally been worth but very little. Tile Learned Counsel
-offered no evidence to diSprove the contract ; but he called a
witness, who considered 12s. sufficient for the hire of .a horse
for two clays; proved that on Sunday morning the horse was
violently ridden ; and produced a groom, who thought it was
never worth more than 121._ _ _ _

As the Learned Counsel for the defendant was addressing the
Jury, and contending that the boy lamed the horse, one of the
Jury stopped him by significantly saying—" Ay, but might
not the hard driving have made him stiff, and so have made
him easier to lame ?" Mr. Phillips observed on the interrup-
tion with some warmth, and in a few minutes another Jury.
man said—" Ay, to be sure ; for my part I think the boy
might have lamed him just as well." The Learned Judge
then courteously requested the Jury to abstain from such ob-
servations in future.

The Jury, after a long trial, returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages 11/. 45., giving 11. 4s. for the hire of the horse,
and 101. for the damage.

LEWES, A ua: 3.

Henry hum, a deputed officer of the smuggling preventive
service, was indicted, on Lord Ellenborough's Act, for mali-
ciously shooting at James Roper, with a loaded pistol, at Hag-
ings, on the 9th June last, with intent to murder him. Them
were other counts, varying the charge. The last count charged
the prisoner with maliciously wounding the prosecutor.
The case proved on the part of the prosecution was this:—
The prosecutor is a mariner, residing at Hastings. In the ever-
ing of the 9th June last a party of the town's people, of which
he was one, assembled on Castle-hill, near Hastings, for the
purpose of regaling themselves. with smoking and drinking
spirits and milk, according to a custom which was stated to
have obtained in the summer season. The party consisted of
men, women, and children, to the number of about thirty. Ia
order to light their pipes the men had procured candles in the
town. About half-past nine o'clock the prisoner came upon
the hill, and seeing the candles alight, exclaimed to the
party, " What's the meaning of all this ?" The prosecutor
replied, " There is no smuggling going on ; we are only en-
joying ourselves, smoking and drinking." The prisoner then
said, "Put those lights out." The prosecutor observed, "I
don't know about that." The prisoner, in a nine peremptory
tone, continued, "Put the lights out, or I'll take one of you
prisoner." The prosecutor repeated the observation, " Idon't
know about that," and whilst he was in the act of light-
ing his pipe, the prisoner discharged his pistol at him, and
lodged a ball, in one of his thighs. Incensed at this pro-
ceeding, some of the party attacked the prisoner, who began
to retreat. He drew his cutlass, and cut right and left. to
keep off the assailants. He was, however, immediately over-
powered, and was receiving very rough treatment, when. he
called upon his assailants, as Englishmen, not to hurt him.
—ln the scuffle a second pistol, which the prisoner had, went
off and wounded him in one of the hands. By elis time some
of the blockade men came up, when the prisoner charged them
to fire. On of the men obeyed the command, and fired his
pistol, which, however, did not take effect. They all swore
solemnly that their meeting on the hill was solely for the pur-
pose of harmless recreation, and that they had no smuggling
objects in view. It was also sworn that no provocation was
given to the prisoner, and that he had deliberately cocked, his
pistol and pointed it at the prosecutor. It was denied that any
brands had been thrown into the air as a signal to smugglers.
or for any other purpose whatsoever. The spot where.the party
were regaling themselves was in front of the sea, and it.was.atl-
mitted that the lights might be visible to smugglers; if time
were any on the look-out. Roper, on his cross-exatainaikm,
admitted that he had been chased two. days before by, Lieut.
Francillion, of the Preventive Service, when he was at see ;
but fie defined answering whether he had thrown any thing
overboard when the lieutenant approached his boat.. He-did
not think himself bound to answer the question. These- were
the leading circumstances of the case.-
The prisoner put in a written statement to. the effect .thSt
he had gone upon the hill in consequence of seeing the lights,
which hediad reason to „suspect were made as signals in -aid of
smuggling, in order to discharge his duty. When he arrived
where the party was sitting, he was immediately attacked iby
-several individuals, by some of whom he was struck ; .where-•
upon, dreading that his life was in danger, he, in self-defence,
and for no other purpose, discharged his pistol, . but with nu
intention of injuring- any particular individual. Being un,atc-
companied by. any of his own people, -he was-in no condition
to prove the truth of these facts, and could only-have resorto
to the.testimonyof some of his assailants, who, from-their bias
upon the-subject, could not be-relied upon as witnesses'in•his
behalf. . He solemnly declared 'bathe had been first assailed!in
the manner statci. and had been actually wounded in the-hand
by a -pistol fired by-one of the smugglers. He submitted.. the
improbabity of his having been the aggressor; ulterebinhe
would necessarily have been-exposed- to the unequal odds of 20
to one.

Lieutenant Francillton proved that he •had.ehase4 the prose-
cutor on the 7th of „hle, and just'imposite the Castle-Itilk-the
latter threw something overboard, which.he suspected to coihist
of contraband goods. The lights seen on the hill wouhlAtase
been a gtiiite-to;persona disposed to fish up any thing,.w4ich
might haVel.been thrown into the sea at the spot where -Roper
had been 'chased.

An excellent character was given to the prisoner by lies fri.-
perior officers, by whom he was described as a man of mild
temper, humanity, and, general good conduct
In the course of the trial it appeared that the evidence of the'•
witnesses for the prosecution had been taken by thelowkrlerk
of the borough of Hastings, when neither the iilayor•nortiny
other Magistrate was present, and that the witpens6B NA not
been sworn until after their statements had been rodnced•to
writing.
The Learned JUDGE animadverted in strong.terms•uposi the
impropriety of this practice, which, he said, was most scandal:.
ous. He had adverted to this practice iii•his charge. to-she
Grand Jury, in ordek that Magistrates might be snore OW tti
their duty, for nothing could be so improper as. for Magistrates
to suffer their clerks to take the statements Of Witnessawitioit*
the sanction of an'oatlt, An theabsence both-of the Magistrates
and of the.party accused. Such was.the course adoptedin this '
case, and he could not condemn it too strongly.
'After an elaborate summing upon thrwhole of the case, 'tie
Jury retired to consider of their verdict at half-past five Nester- •
Slay evening; and between one and tatou'alock thislnorning
they brought the prisoner in Not-Givilty.,.

ADULTERATED FLO U it.—ln consequence of
the . exposure of the adulteration of -flour •before the LORD
MAYOR, it is•said, the matter is likely ,to'oceppy.thelieribut
consideration of •• Government, as the.subject,has.inicite4:4lue
attentioh at the Borne Department, and measniennodpill**Al
be adopted to prevent, at much as possible a recurrence of iutit
fraudulent proceedings.