The Sun.
London, England, 1825-08-04 00:00:00

THURSDAY EVENING, AUGUST 4, 1825

principles, both of law and justice, to your verdict, which, I
trust, will satisfy Mr. Lambert, that the new lights he has fol-
lowed are not the true lights.
Mr. Charles Roberts produced from the Record Office in the
Tower, an examined copy of a Charter, granted by Henry 111.
in the 35th year of his reign, to Edmund Lacy.
The Charter was then read by the clerk of the Court. It
granted to Edmund Lacy, whom it styles our beloved valet, the
manor of Bradford, with liberty to hold a weekly fair on Thurs-
day, and to have the privilege of holding a yearly fair to con-
tinue five days. •
The same witness produced an examined copy of a record in
the reign of Charles 1., which seemed, as far as we could col-
lect from the small portion of it which was read, to be an
assignMent of certain manors, including among others, the
manor of Bradford, to certain individuals 'therein named, as
a security for certain monies advanced and to be advanced
to the Crown : from this grant or assignment the present '
plaintiff' derives his title. A charter of the 22 Edward L.
was also produced, which granted to Edward' de Lacy the
privilege of having a market at Pontefract on Wednesdays,
and a yearly fair of three days, and which recognizes and
confirms the former grant of a market on Thursday, St Brad.
ford.

Mr. Hailstone is the steward of the manor of Bradford :
he produced a lease of the manor, and also a deed of sale,
conveying t 6 the present plaintiffthe manor of Bradford, with
all its rights. This deed, which is dated 13th February, 1793,
was executed by John Marsden, who resided at Wellington-
hall, near Hornby, in Lancashire. Mr. Rawson has regu.
larly received the profits of the market.—On his cross-ex-
arnination he said, he had defended the action of Hodgson
against the Lord of the Manor, and added, that he had not
been able to get from Mr. Lambert the papers relative
to that • action, though repeated applications had been made
for them.
Mr. Bolland is 73 years of age; has known the town near 70
years; the market was formerly held at the Bull's Head, West-
gate.; his mother rented the toils of the market, and lie col..
lected them for her for seven or eight years. Those persons
who found their own stalls paid twopence fora stand, and those
who had stalls provided for them paid, one shilling; they also
collected a toll of corn, and received a penny a sack for po-
tatoes. Witness could not say that every one paid, but he
collected from most of therm—Witness was cross-examined
by Mr. BROUGHAM, who endeavoured to elicit from him,
that those persons who had stalls upon the foot-path did not
pay ; but the witness answered his questions in so confused
a manner, that it Was Impossible precisely to ascertain his
meaning. He stated that persons who had shops sold meat
in them in other parts of the town, without any person inter-_
fering with theM, but the principal part of the butchers'
shops were near the ma4ket, and those who lived at a dis-
tance from it sold meat in their shops. The market was held
on Thursday.
Wm. Stephenson is 71 years of age ; attended the market
upwards of 80 years; he used to set his stall out, and a person
tame and received two-pence from bins every market-day.—
Witness kept the new market ; he had no stall, but placed his
stuff on the ground, and then he paid nothing. Witness, in
answer to a question from Nlr. Brougham, stated that some,
persons sold meat in different parts of the town in their Own
houses.

I Mr. Thomas Akcroyd lives at Allerton ; has attended Brad-
, ford market 43 years, and he paid eight-pence. a week for his
stall, which he set out on Thursday and Saturday. Witness
had an action brought against him by Mr. Lambert, becausehe
wquld not remove into the new market, and he had 18/. to pay.
Witness, on his cross-examination, said, that John Hartley had
a butcher's shop at the top of -Ive-gate.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY. —I do not think it any infringement
upon the rights of the market, for a person resident in the town
to sell any articles in his own house.
Mr. BROUGHAM.—Then, my Lord, it cannot be an infringe.
tnent to build houses for that purpose.
Mr. Justice BAY L EY. -it is a very different thing to build
shops, to invite persons to come who do not reside in the town'
Mr. Edward Rawnsley stated, that his father was the lessee
of the Bradford market; the lease expired in 1791, but he con-
tinued to collect the tolls up to 1799. Persons came from dits
ferent parts of the country to it; it was not so' well attended
then as it is now. Witness does not know to whom his father
paid the money. Mr. Hailstone produced an account book,,
which the witness looked at, and said it was the hand-ivriting
of his father. This book contained the names of the different
persons from whom rents for stalls had been received, and
some extracts were read from it. 111 r, Hailstone, in answer to
a question from the Judge, said, that the new market, in Dar-
ley-street, was erected on freehold land, which Mr. Rawson pos-
sessed before he had the manor: •

Mr. John Burnley began to collect the rents for stalls in 1801,
when the new market was opened. When he first began to
collect, the rents amounted to 'l5/..per annum, anti they have
been progressively increasing ever since, and they now amount
to about 871. per ann. • Witness knows Mr. Wright, the de-
fendant in this action ;- he bean to build his market in 1823 ;
it is situated mar the old ctiurch, at a place called the Hall
Ing. Mr.-James Richardby was the builder, and witness fur-
nished part of the stone ; there is a row of small shops for but-
chers, and a spacious area for a market, and there is also a very
good slaughter-house. Mr. Wright's market was opened at the
latter end of 1823, and continued open several weeks, and was
fequented by a great number of persons. The shops were let
for four guineas a year. Butchers' meat was sold there both on
Thursday and Saturday.
Mr. Samuerretley was examined by Mr. SCARLET! ; he
produced the collecting book of Samuel Smith, who was the
grandfather of his wife. Witness has known Bradford 54
years ; the market was first held in Westgate ; the market was
for corn, butter, vegetables, and had stallshlreiposing buthers'
meat and other articles, such as shoes, leather, &c. An attempt
was made many years ago to remove the market, which did not
succeed ; but it was afterwards removed by the Lord. of the
Manor ; there is now anew market-place in Darley-street ; it
was opened two years ago, and is well attended. It was about
the year 1783 that an attempt was made to remove the • market,
but it, was only used for a few weeks, and there was only one
person continued to sell in it during the whole time ; the
shops were turned into cottages, and the market-house was
let for a warehouse. Mr. Rawson has since re-built this
market. -

1 Mrs. Elizabeth Taylor has known the market 33 years ; she
attended it, and sold garden-stuff; the market was then held in
' Westgate; it was afterwards removed to New-street: Witness
had stalls in both markets : when it was held in Westgate she
paid 7s. 6d. a year, and 30s. in the new market, which she paid
to Mr. Rawnsley. Witness,' on her cross-examination by Mr.
Alderson, stated that there was a Market on Saturday, as well
as Thursday, arid that stalls were set out on the former. The
i butchers all stood in a row ; there were but few butchers' shops
in other parts of the town. 'Witness mentioned the names of
about halfadcizen persons who had shops in other parts of the
town,..and who sold butchers' meat.
Mr. WrARKIE—And was it not a great public convenience?
Mr. Justice BAY LE y-'--That consideration tbrms no part of
the present case, and ought not to' enter into it ; no man had a
a right to do any thing to prejudice the rights of the Lord of
the Manor. If the present market be insufficient, let there be
an application made to the Crown for a new charter; who will
issue a writ to inquire into the facts. ' •
Witness • was then examined with respect to the state of the
other markets, but nothing material was elicited. •
' Mr. James Tetley proved the giving of a notice' to Mr.
Wright, to warn him against building any shops for a market.
Mr. Timothy Ingham stated, that Mr. Wright's market was
opened on the 21st of October, 1323; there were thirty-two
shops'finished, and there is I;round..work prepared for as many
more; seven .or eight of the shops were occupied by butchers,
whose names he mentioned ; three of them had had shops in*,
Mr. Rawson's market ; witness also mentioned the names of
persons who were selling in Mr. Wright's market apples, pota-
toes, and otherfritit and vegetables.
Malthew Striker used to attend Mr. Raw son's market at the
latter'end of 1823'; he went into the market at Hall Ings,where
hesold his apples. A gentleman, whom he did not know, gave
him a shilling, but he' added that he also got 'a shilling at the
other market the first time that it 'was opened.
James Hinds, who is'alsO a fruit seller; gaVe evidence to the
same effect; he added that a perOn told him, that if he carried
his goo& to that market they' would be toll free. Witness said'
he attended it' for'about six Weeks. and paid io toll. or rent ; a
good ninny people attended the market. .
Mn Benj. Sowden is a butcher ; . be saw Mr. Wright. before`
his market was opened, who told him that he had no doubt of
its, being a very goOd market if people" could Only go there:—
Some of the.shopS wereopened miother days'besideitthe market •
days, blit'not Many. . .
This finished the case on the part of the plairitiff: '
Mr..Bitotion/tat'said,* before' he' made anyobservations on'
the case made out by the plaintiff, he would say a word or two

: on the attack made by the. Learned Counsel on -Air. Lambert,
whose only fault was tleat, some twenty. years ago, he was the
attorney of Mr. Rewson, and in that character carried .on a
suit for him, and that now he was the attorney of Air. Wright.
In this he had not acted in the least ineensistently•with any'
rule of the profession; and he -was, the more surprised at the
Learned Counsel making this a subject of remark, as he"him-
self had been reproached, not 'many days before; by another
Learned Friend, who was now with him in the present'cause,
for a similar change of sides. It was also a predicament in
which his own attorney had been placed, and which must, in
the nature of things, continually happen taprofessional men.
Mr. BROUGHAM then proceeded to • offer a number of Oh-
servations to the Judge on the law; both tie it respected the
grounds' of the action and the . manner in which the different
counts in the indictment were affected by the evidence, which
we shall give in as condensed a form a possible. Mr:
Brougham contended, that no toll was payable in this market,
for the rents demanded for stalls was not a toll'; inasmuch as
the sum was regulated, not by the quantity of goods sold, belt
by the space they occupied. The plaintiff had na ground of ac-
tion, and he objected to the case cited, whisk was the only one
on' which Mr: Scarlett rested, on the ground 'that it had never
been reported, and that its authenticity depended entirely on a
manuscript note. Mr. 'Brougham further contended, that as all
usage had, up to the year 1800, limited the holding of the matc
ket to Westgate, this usage ought to be considered as restraining
the manner of the grant to the holding of a market in that par,
ticular spot, or rather that this usage raised a presumption in'
law that a subsequent law has been made, restraining
the general words of the - first- charter, and especially as
the market had been removed, not to mesne lands within • the
manor, but to the private estate of the plaintiff', of which he
was possessed before he had the manor, and - which was not
strictly part of the manor. His Lordship -with respect to the
first objection, said he would take a note of it, and Mi.
Brougham might hereafter have the benefit of it; but-with ce--
spetteo that relating to the removal of the market, he was
clearly of opinion that it was void of all ' foundation. The'
plaintiff;, as Lord of the Manor, was the owner of the market
and the stiil ; the place to which he had removed it was within
the manor—within the limits of which tire Lord might remove
the market as often as he pleased ; and he' could not, in the'
face of the original grant, and without any evidence, make the , 1
presumption that there had been "a subsequent grant, restrain-
ing
the privilege conferred by the first, and with respect to its,
not being part of the manor, the separate freehold previously
possess ed by the Lord, might be considered as merged in the
manor. Mr. Brougham also submitted that there were two
counts in the _declaration, the 4th and 6th, which were not
proved, or rather which were disproved by the evidence. The
point on which Mr. Brougham relied, ' and on which he had
intended to have gone to' the. Jury, was
_this, that as it was
clearly established by the usage that persons might sell in their
own houses such articles'as were sold in the market, and also
in shops separate from their. bodies, though the instances of the
latter usage were not numerous, he was entitled to the inference
.that this mode of selling tras.nbt an inftingement of the Lord's
rights, and to the further mferetice that if a person might sell
such articles in his
.own hOuse, he had also a tight to build a
house or -an number of houses for that purpose, which
was all that his client had done. He should be able
to call additional witnesses to fortify this part of the case ;
but if his LordahiPthought that the proving of it would not
avail- him, he would not unnecessarily occupy the time of the
Court.

Mr. Justice BATLEY said, the proving of this by ever so
many witnesses would make no difference. It was clearly, in
his opinion, a-disturbance of the Lord's market, for any person
to build, not houses for the use of the resident inhabitants, but
shops without houses for the purpose of inviting strangers to use
it as a market..

Mr. HAM—Then, my Lord, I shall leave the care as
it now stands.

Mr: Justice 13Arr.ry shortly stated to the Jury the grounds
on which the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict; the right of the
plaintiff to hold a market was clearly established by the charter.
No market could be held without a charter • and no person
had a right to do any act which would have the effect of with-
drawing persons from the chartered market. The acts proved
against the defendant had clearly this effect.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages One
Shilling.
31r. Anotramtm said there ought to be a verdict for the de-
fendant on the 4th and 6th counts.

His Loupsm P said. this might be matter of arrangement
between the parties, and 31r. Brougham acquiesced in this
suggestion.

LEICESTER, AUG. 2.

These Assizes commenced this morning. Mr. Justice Hot.
BOYD presiding at Nisi Prius, and Mr. Justice PARE, sitting
in the Criminal Colin: The attendance of Gentlemen of the
Grand Jury was particularly great. The usual number hav-
ing been sworn in,
Mr. Justice PARK delivered his charge to them, observing
that the calendar did not contain either many or any heavy
crimes ; there were, however, two or three which required his
particular notice. He alluded to the cases of three men who had
been committed on very peculiar grounds; he meant" Edward
Beggs, Joseph Sherratt, and John Mill. The distance of time
when these men were committed after the commission of their
supposed offences was particularly remarkable. Sherratt was
committed on the 25th of last month, upon suspicion of stealing
an ass, at a period so long previous that it was hardly reasonable
to expect the prisoner to be able to give a satisfactory account of
the manner by which he becathe possessed of the animal, al-
though the nature of the charge would principally depend
upon such a statement. There was one cause which,required
the most serious attention of the Grand Jury—it was that of
Sir Willoughby W. Dixie, -who had been committed to gaol
on the charge of maliciously shooting at the Rev. T. Wright
and the Rev. R. Wright. There were two Acts of Parliament
having reference to cases of this description, the Act Of Geo. 1.,
commonly called the Black Act, and the one passed in his late
Majesty's reign, and which, front the circumstance of its being
brought into Parliament by the late Lord Ellenborough, was.
generally called Lord Ellenborough's Act. He (Mr. Justice
Park) did not know upon which of these two Acts it was in-
tended to prefer the present indictment. The penalty imposed
by the latter Act was that of death, on such persons as should
maliciously shoot at others, with an intent to do one of .four
things—to murder, to disable, to inflict some grievous bodily
harm, or to prevent the lawful apprehension of the person.
Should the-evidence so to make odt either of these intentions
on the part of the prisoner, then the Grand Jury would feel it
their' duty to put him on his trial.'
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr.,Justice HOLROYD.)
31t6DOWALL V. CHETWLLL.
This was an action of trover to recover three bottles of wine,
which the defendant had illegally conveyed to his own use.
Mr. CLARKE stated the caseto the Jury. His client was the
Rector of Ashby-de-la-Zouche, and the defendant was an
auctioneer, and church Warden of the same place. ThOnentiOn
of three bottles of wine might appear ridiculous, and sadly con-
trasted with the pride, pomp, and circumstance of a trial at law ;
but the present question involved • the most important Tights
of the Church. By the Rubric of the EstabliShed Church, it
was directed that the Churchwardens should provide' the sa-
cramental wine; but in the present case it was not a complaint
that the Churchwardens had refused- to produce the symbol of
the body and blood of Our Lord, but that he had carried away,
and converted to, his own convivial' purposes, that portion of
the symbol' which had not been' used in the holy office—
The defendant was a Methodist, who had procured
,him-
aelf to' be 'elected to his Office in the church. On last
Whitsunday he had been applied to for wine sufficient
for the ordinary consumption of the congregation, and he had
supplied five bottles, partaking himself, of the sacrament—a
thing which he had not.•done for along time befotec By the
Rubric it was decreed, that'whatever of the sacrament should
be unconsumed by the congregation, the Rector shOuld eat-
and drink it in the church with those around him. It was the'
custom to provide on extraordinary occasions five bottles 'of
wine, and the rector was used to consecrate as much Of it as he'
thought the communicants would drink and to reserve the re-
mainder- for his own perquisite. Qn'th?l`Present.occaSion, the
bottles of wine were placed under '
tar,:, After: the com-
munication, two of the bottles had,bdcp,constimed, and the
Churchwarden was seen removing the remaining three of 'the
llottles for his own use. This was a direct attack upon the rites
aricreeremonigs of the Church, and the Rector had thought it_
incubi bent-Upon him to institute the present suit, as the conduct'
of'the defendant; in stealing the three bottles of mine, had out:
raged the privileges of 'the',Clertiy, and the 'holy ordinances of
the Church. _

The -Pavish Clerk deposed that the five bottles of -wine had
been protided for the congregation—two kof port, and three of
tent ; two of these were uncorked, and the defendant had left

PRICE SEVENDr,Ne E.

the cork-screw sticking in the third: only. two of tile bottles cf
wise had, been :-untorkted for the Lote's-Supper,-"ariirflie •re-
mainder hadbeen left under the altar.:
On a cross•examination,c-it appeared-that the: defendahrliaff.
afterwards given' up two onthe bottlesior;theberieflt of the pool,.
Mr. Serje ant VAL'CrIcAI44; for: the defenee;-conrended
the acrimony against the defendant had arisen, 4not froitt stir
anxiety for the wine intended for-the Lord's Supper,' but, ifibfm,
his being of a different religion, The Learried•Coimsel con-
tended, that-in •an action of. trover,:a pecopettyttnti§t'he proved
in the plaintiff, but in the ,present' instance', ttie plaintiff pils•-•
sessedA property only in.the wine-tobe:useattlie4iord%; Supper,'
but this related to the surplus wine.
Verdict for the defendant.
Thomas Dinckky and Samuel Bird were indicted fot• extort
- in;; money from John Axx, by putting him in bodily fear
threats that they would accuse him of having committed a cer-
tain nameless offence. The prisoners were indicted last Assiz-!s,
ror the same crime, but owing to a defect in the indictnient-they-
ware remanded, and again sent to tile bar' on an amended in-
dictment.
Parnell Axx, wife of the prosecutor, and several other wit
nesses, were examined, who proved the charge against the pri-
soners.
Mr. Ihrsinutzr, as Counsel for the prisoners, raised two
objections to the indictment, both of which were overruled by
the Court-Lhis Lordship observing that all the counts had been
submitted-to-and approved by the twelve Judges of England.
The prisoners had nothing to say in theit'defehee.
The Jury consulted for a few minutes, and found both pri-
soners Guilty.;

SIR N9ILLOUGIIII, ItrOOLSTON 11-.IIxIE. •
During the preceding trial the Gentlemen of the Grand Jury
returned several bine against different prisoners included in the
,calendar. After the Clerk of the Arraigns had taken them *from
the 'Foreman, that gentleman and several others belonging to
the Grand Jury remained in the gallery. His Lordship 'O9-
serving this, addressed himself to Sir H. Raiford, and asked
'whether there were not any other bills before them ?
Sir IL Halford—No, my Lord.
Mr. Justice PARKE—Is there no indictment against Sir W;
W. Dixie ?

. Sir H. Halford—No, my Lord.
• Mr. Justice PARSE—Then let the prosecutors be called
on their recognisance& To what amount are they sword to
appear
The Clerk of the Court here communicated to his ,Lordship
in an undertone the sum, which we believe is 501. each. • -•
The Reverend Thomas and the Reverend Charles Wright
were then called three several times- to appear, and prosecute
'the indiCtment against Sir. W..W. Dixie, or their recognisances
would be obtruded.
Neither of the gentlemen answered to their names.
Mr. Jtistice PAILIC—Is there no attorney in attendance for the
prosecution ? _

A gentleman a few minutes afterwards entered the Court, and
going towards the Bench, said—l aln the Attorney for the pro-
secutors my Lord.
M J
r. ustice Panic.llave you got any oidence, Sir, to sup-
port the charge against Sir Willoughby Dixie ?
Attorney—No, my Lord, I, have no evidence to bring EQ.%
ward.

By the Cottat —Call all the recogbizances. By this conduct
the ends of public justice are defeated. The recognizance,' are
most inadequate, and it reflects no credit on the Magistrates for
having taken them.
The Rev. prosecbtors having been again called upon their re-
cognizance, and not appearing, •
The,Citt.R.T7.-Let their retognizances be estreated. I car-
not.say how far these Rev. Gentlemen consider themselves tr,
acting with propriety to the county ; for, from what appears in
the depositions, I hold this to be as gross a case as I have evqr„
seen in a Court of Justice... I .wish also that the Magistrates.
of the county should underatand that in future all depositions
respecting felonies should be returned to the Judges at the
Assize at the very first moment.
The Grand Jury were then dismissed.
This result of the tbarge against Sir Willoughby Dixie had-
been anticipated by the public, and the case did not appear to
have excited any Interest whatever in the neighbourhood of
Leicester.—The Judges had refused. to bail the Baronet,- who
had been kept in confinement in the County Gaol, where he had
been perfectly reserved upon the subject of his offer ce.
At the close of the Court, Sir W. W. Dixie, and some minor
persons in custody, were discharged by proclamation.

LEWES, Au o. 2.
(Before Lord ChiefJuttice BEST.)

Stephen Church was indicted for feloniously setting on fire
two hay ricks, the property of George Randall, at Heysitot,in'
-
the night of the 13th July.
A case of great suspicion was opened and proved agair(st the.
prisoner. It appeared that he was son of a small farmer in the
prosecutor's neighbourhood. In the night time of the .13th of. .
July two ricks of hay, belonging to the prosecutor, were con- .
sumed by fire. The prisoner had been seen going, in a direc--
tiOn towards the ricks at three o'clock in the morning,_. with a,
lantern, and almost immediately afterwards the 'conflagration:
took place. As evidence of his malice towards the prosecutor,
it was proved that he had caused a boy to take the Emil-pins
from the wheels of his loaded waggon for the purpose of its be-
ing
upset when put in motion. Shortly before the fire broke out
he had also foretold the event ; and when it happened, he de-
dined using any exertions in extinguishing the flames.
The Jury; under the Learned Judge's directions, found the
prisoner Not Guilty.
Sarah Little, a married woman, was indicted:for the wilful .
murder.of her male infant child, at Pulborough, on the 11th.
May last.
It appeared that the prisoner was servant in the family of
a printer at Worthing. Being in the family-way, she received ..
notice to quit her place, and her mistress kindly lent her some'
baby-linen for her confinement, which was intended to take .
place at the house of a relation. On the day mentioned in the
indictinent the prisoner became a mother, in a field near Rif. •
linghurst, after having left a house in 'Pulborough, where she -
had taken lodgings. On returning to her lodgings, her landlady:'
observing the alteration in her appearance, and that she was ex. •
tremely ill, asked her whathad become of her child ? At first she
denied that she had had any chill!' but, upon being pressed.
.more homely, she said that, in getting over a stile, :the pains
of parturition came on, and that the infant having fallen on.
the ground, it was killed on the spot, and she had buried it 'in a
, ditch. In consequence of her description the place, the'
child was afterwards found, covered up in a ditch with mud.
The child's head was fractured, and .some of the mud
peared to have found its way into the windpipe, as far as they
cells of the lungs. •
The .surgeons examined gave it as their opinion that the
child'i death might have been occasioned in the manner. stared
by the mother, and that supposing the 'child to be apparently' ;.
dead from the fall, it might have had sufficient life to imbibe'
by convulsive respiration the liquid mud found in the windpipe
and lungs.
After an able summing up of the case by the Learned:Judge,
the Jury-found the prisoner Not Guilty.