The Sun.
London, England, 1814-03-03 00:00:00

MURDER.

On Saturday last an inquest was taken by Mr.
Green, on the body of James Spencer,-at the poo;
house,,Lyndurst :—lt appeared-on evidence, that
a quarrel had taken place between the family of
the deceased and that of George Hinves ; their
wives were pulling each other's caps, wheti the
deceased came to his door, . called his wife, and
Hinves then appeared (who is a shoemaker) at his
own, door, with a knife, cutting, board, and
piece of leather ; calling to his son, be gave
him the- board and leather, and 'advanced to.„
wards the women with the knife in his right
hand ; the deceased seeing him, came out, ,
and caught him by the waist, at the, saltic
time pulling him . from the womeo ; they
setae& and fell-, Hinves. being. uth'er they rose
again, when the deceased remarked, " Hinves,
what do you mean by that knife in your hand 3"
no reply was made; they again scuffled, fell,and the
deceased was under ; his son seeing him, assisted
him to rise,. when as he was staggering towards ,
his own doer, Hitives struck him on the back, he.
fell on his- face and- never struggled more. The
unfortunate man was then taken in, and
• pired within half an hour ; on examining his body
a .deep wound (which appeared to, have been
inflicted by a knife) was discovered in the left side-
of his groin, as also several slight
.wounds on. his
breast and arm.—. The Jury, after a consultation.
of three hours, returned a verdict of Manshiughler.
—Spencer has left a wife, and six children.—
Hinves is counnitted for trial.

DUBLIN, Fen. .21.---At the last Quarter
Ses-
sions, George hope was found guilty, acid selltenced to 12 months imprisonment in Newgate,
for traunuteutry n farthing belonging to
his employer,..which, it appears, was one of tliree
coined .by Queen ANNE., and esteemed of
value to antiquarians; he
.wanted to extort a
bond for 7001. from his master for the tarthieg,
and refused to restore it otherwise. The Recorder
regretted that the Court was unable to go as tar
bs it would wish in.his punishment. .
Tuesday morning; about 8 o'clock, the Keeper
of Southgate Prison, in Exeter, attended the fe-
lons with a candle to light their fire, when a than
Called Sharland (just reprieved from death), as he
entered the cell, gave him a blow, slipped o
and locked the door upon him : the prisoner then
attem?ted to
.escape; by ascending a trap-door
that led to - the • debtors' apartments, and, 'after
locking•the Keeper's wife in Sher bed-room, de-
scended to the front door ; here hc.was at a-stand,
forthe Keeper had the key of it in his pocket,
which; after calling loudly to .some people in the
street, be threw out to them, and they immedi-
ately entered,' and secured the prisOner. He has
been double-ironed, and also all the other pri-
soners, as it is supposed 'they were acquail,ted
with the intention.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MARCH

REGENT'S CANAL.

AtAR, ESQ. V. THE REGENT'S CANAL COMPANY.
This day the arguments in support of the long
contested motion for dissolving the injunction oh-
taine.d by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants
from Jeli7rying the Canal through his' estate and
improvements, at the Parish of St. Pancras, in the
con of Middlesex, Called Elm Lodge, were.
concluded by the reply of Mr. HART„ on the part
of the defendant's, in answer to the arguments of
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY,- the leading Counsel for
'the plaintiff.
The LORD CHANCELLOR., after conftnenting
minntely on the disputed terms of some clauses
in the Act of Pariiainent passed on this subject,
and particularly on the excepting clauses therein
contained in favour of the plaintiff, and exempting
his estate from the general operations of the Act,
unless with his consent, stated that he was de-
cidedly of opiniop that such clauses of exemption
were valid against the defendant's power, under
the other and general provisions of the Act, as far
RS regarded the rights of the plaintiff;either as to
objects of profit or pleasure. In consideration,
however, of the public importance of such Acts
of. Parliament, and the construction to be pelt upon
them in this Court,, as also the power of stopping
wholly ou injury. instriid Of directing an inquiry
as to the quantum of conpenisation in damages ;
find also on the general uliey or utility of such
parliamentary corporations, &c. he should, in two
or.three days, deliver his sentiments fully.
General judgment was postponed.
LLOYDS V. PASSINGHAMS.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY and Mr. WINGFIELD were
heard for the defendants in this case: They con-
tended, that the agreement or compromise en-
tered into between the parties, after the trial of
the action of ejectment, in which the Jury found
a verdict for the lessor of the plaintiff (the pre-
sent.defendant Jonathan Passinghani) ratified and
confirmed as that compromise afterwards was by
regular and formal deeds, legally .and solemnly
. executed, could not he set aside or broken in up-
on .by his Lordship, at such a distance of time,
and in such circumstances as those whichTre-
scatted themselves in the present case. Admitting
the entries of the birth of the child, and of the bu-
rial of the wife of Gwyne Lloyd, in the register of
the parish of St.Pancras to be forgeries, still, they
submitted, that independently of those entries alto-
gether, there was evidence sufficient upon the
trial to warrant the Jury in-/ coming to the con-
clusion they bad done, that the defendants' were
the legitimate descendants of the late Gwyne
Lloyd. Several witnesses, relations of the fa-
mily, bad proved' the declarations of Gwyne
Lloyd himself, that lie was married to the mother
of his- ehild' in the Fleet. The • register of the
Fleet, though perhaps not itself conclusive evi-
dence, yet was a powerful corroboration of chat
declaration, containing, as it did, a correspond-
ing entry. The issue of this marriage, the mo-
ther of the defendants, it also appeared from the
evidence adduced on the trial, had been put out
to nurse, had been clothed, and had, at the age
0112 years, been sent to a boarding-school, as the
lawful child of Gwyne Lloyd ; and the same wit-
nesses swore, that it was not till the marriage of this
daughter with the father of the-defendants, with-
(lnt the-consent, and contrary to-the inclination
of her father, that he cast her off, anti would take
no farther notice of tier.' No contradiction was,
upon. the trial, offered to this evidence, clearly
spewing, that among the different branches of the
family, the mother of the defendants had the
reputation of being the legitimate child of Gwyne
Lloyd. The Jury, upon the whole of the evidence,
and not in any principal degree, upon the entries
in the Pancras -Register,he(risteil, _found a verdict for the
lesser of the plaintiff at law tthe present defend-
ant) ; anti how was his Lordship •now to say,
that they would have found otherwise, had no
such entries, as those which were now objected
to as forgvries, been in evidence. They sub-
rnitted to his Lordship that, independently of
those entries altogether, there was sufficient
before the Jury to have justified them in
giving the verdict they had done. Nay, that sup,-
posing no such entries to have been given in evi-
dence, they could, when looking at the other evi-
dence on the trial, have found no other verdict.
Was his Lordship then, after this compromise had
taken place, and after the solemn deed of release
wh;ch had been executed between the parties, to
interfere, on the ground of part of the evidence
being bad, and to send back tO a trial at
law, a right which. had been solemnly set to
rest by-the parties, themselves, in a case in which
it appearen,• that independently of the defective
evidence; there was quite enough remaining to
warrant the verdict of the Jury, since ratified and
approved of by the parties-)
The Lour, CHANCELLOR, previous to the reply,
asked if there were any cases to be found in which
a Court of Equity had interfered, after a trial at
law, and a COMprll/111.IC ita-os->rsocart,tvcc-,-
the parties, to the effect of setting aside that com-
promi!ie and the release following on it, mere-
ly on 'the• ground of its haVing afterwards been
discovered that there was a defect in some part of
the evidence adduced on that trial ? If there were
no such cases, and the Court - was now, for
the first time, •to say whether, in such a case, it
ought to interfere, on what principle was. that in-
terference to be granted ?. If any of the witnesses
had been Tenured, would that have been' a
ground for the interference of the .Court ? Could
his Lordship,_ if he were to • direct a new trial
at law in this case, suffer the
_present Tlaintiffs
to he in a better situation than they would have
been had they in due. time moved the Court of
King's Bench for a new trial ? Could lie allow
them now to avail themselves of evidence which
it was then in their power tO have brought for-
ward, hut wlticli they had neglected to do) His
Lordship "did not see, independently of the en-
tries now stated to be forgeries, that the Jury,
looking to the other evidence on the trial of the
could have conic to a different cot-t-
-ension' fi OM that which they had foemed) and,
was his Lordship now to let the plaintiffs. in,
to give farther evidence of facts which were

then within filch. knovdedge; which
,they, lea
neglected to bring forwArd ? His tordslii

_ .
thought that parties ought to be equally on
their guard agaitist forged entries in registers
as against perjuries in witnesses. He recollected
a case of a trial of an ejectment, in which his
Lordship was for the DeTendant, and in which the
plaintiff recovered a verdict in consequence of an
entry in a register on a Monday A Similar
depending on the same entry, was to have taken'
place .on the WedneSday but the defendant, in
the,mean time, having inspected the original, the
plaintiff did not 'chnse to proceed to trial. The
lionse of Lords, his Lordship observed, always
procc,eded on in inspection of the original re-
gister.

Mr. HART, in reply, contended, that on the
trial of the ejectment, the present plaintiffs had
been completely deceived by the entries in ques-
tion, by which they had- been induced to suppose
it wholly useless to
,adduce the stciong evidence
with which they were prepared to have met the
parole testimony on the other side. To the be-
nefit of this 'evidence, therefore, he submitted.they
were still entitled.

The LORD 'CHANCELLOR said he must take a
day or two to consider the case.

EX PARTE LIST, IN THE MATTER OF CUMMINS

it SAMUEL ROMILLY, in this ease, in %!vhich his
Lord,h IF had made an order for dischargii)g' List
out of custody, be having- been arrested by au of:-
ticer of the Sheriffs of Middlesex, on his return
home, after proving a debt before the Commis-,
siouers at under the commission of
bankrupt against Cummins, stated', that he held
in his hand the application which 14 been made
to Mr, Justice Lc Blanc, with the Learned Judge's
indorsement. thereon, from which it' appeared,
that he'had refused the applicationj solely on the
.
ground of his having' no uns'diction, but that the
same properly belonged to his Lordship: He now,
therefore, hoped that his Lordship would be-of
opinion, that a party who had been improperly
arrested and detained in custody,' should be reim-
bursed of the costs and expences he had been
put to..

- The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered, that the ap-
plicant should have his costs, and also all reason-
able expenses incurred by him during the period
he had bee❑ in custody. .•

COURT OP KiNG's BENCH, MARCH 2.
Lord ELLENEOROUGH finished .the Common
Jury causes this day. To-morrow and Friday
his Lordship will try Special Juries.

TEULON V. SOMERS.

This was an action of a bill of exchange for 651.
10s. The defence was, that the money advanced
was only 631. and 21. 10s. was added -as interest
for two mouths; but'a witness who was called to
disprove the evidence of the defendant's wit-
nesses declined answering, and the plaintiff was
Ronsuited.'

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

ASSIGNEES OF SMITH V. THE ATLAS INSURANCE

COMPANY.

This was an action brought to recover 26001.
the sum for which wearing apparel and furniture
of. Smith, the bankrupt, was insured. It will be
recollected that Smith was 'tried and acquitted at
the Old Bailey, for burning his house in Newgate,
street ; but as many circumstances tended to cast
suspicion on hint, the Atlas Company resisted the
demand of his assignees., It appeared On the trial
at the Old Bailey, that between 9 and JO on the
11th of November, 1812, Smith, who *vas a mer-
chant taylor, went with
.his clerk, a friend,
and two or his men, to a public-house, near
Tower-hill, to give them a treat : he there
got so drunk, that he was carried home by a
porter to another house which he had in
Houndsditch, where he staid till the next morn-
ing, when news was brought him
.that his house
in Newgate-street was burnt. It appeared that
on the 10th Smith had bought some turpentine,
pitch, links, firewood, and shaVings, which he
hail brought home himself.

Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD, in stating the case for
the plaintiffs, observed, that the circumstance of
Smith buying -his own firewood and turpentine
was not calculated to raise any well-tounded sus-
picion, as he was a vulgar man, and was constantly
in the habit of acting as his •own portei., lle
said he should prove that Smith had, previon3ly
to the fire, four thousand pounds worth of goods
in his shop, and though he was constantly selling,
the deficiency so • created was as constantly made
good. He was proceeding to call witnesses, when
the Chief Justice observed, that as it would be
very desirable that some of the creditors should
be examined, who could not he admitted as wit-
nesses, it was highly proper, on all accounts,
that the'case should go to a reference.—The case
accordingly, with the consent of the parties,
went to a reference."

It would seem, by a statement in a Hull, Paper,
that Mr. and Mrs. I;AIt&ARII),,' of Cave Castle, in
the East-Riding, have narrowly escaped the fate
of Mr: 'and Mrs. BoNA.a. Their footman (who
was a great favourite), had evinced symptoms of
insanity, frequently expressed his admiration of
ralcuolson-,-theinurderer, and even at last hinted
to the coachman that he should imitate his ex-
ample by murdering Mr. and. Mrs. BARNARD.—
This caused the footman to be secured. He Was
taken to York Asylum, where, when- his frenzy
had subsided, fie freely confessed that it was his
fi.:rn resolution to have murdered his master and
mistress. Ile named the time and ulace, when
and where the deed Was to be, perpetrated, and
was so clear and circumstantial in the develope-
mentof is plan, as to leave no dOubt that, but
for. the acovery of the-coachman, we should have

bad 'to horrify our readers• by a relation of the
murder of the respectable master and mistress ok
caye Castle.

Early in the Morning of Monday sennight,
two large dogs, which had been kept in a tan-
yard in Stafford, for the purpose of protecting the
property therein,"having by some means acquired
their (away, priiceeded to a field at the Lantherd-
cotes, where they worried great part of a: flock
of very valuable ewos (in number 36); all or most
of which were in lanib. They killed seven, and
nine have since "been slaughtered, and 'sold at it
very lcmr'rate: loss -is sustained by the pro-
prietor of the tan-yard: tke'lerOCiotis animals
have been destroyed.