The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-16 00:00:00

THE RING V. BURN.

Mr. ALEXANDER appeared on behalf of General Whar-
ton, a General in the army, Deputy-Lieutenant of the
county of York, and Justice of the Peace for the East
Riding of that county, to move for a rule to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed against one
Thomas Burn. On the 1 ith of last October Burn came
before General Wharton, who was sitting in his character
of Justice of the Peace and Commissioner for hearing and
deciding in cases of wages and small debts, to answer a
complaint made by one Smallwood, who claimed from
Burn payment of a small sum of money. The General, hav-
ing beard the complaint, made a❑ order in favour of Small-
wood, directing Burn to pay him the money claimed.
Burn then made a similar claim against Smallwood, but
General Wharton declined to decide on it at that moment,
but gave time to the parties to produce their evidence, in-
forming them at that moment that for what had then been
done no charge of costs should be made, if the money de-
cided to be paid was paid without further trouble ; but that
if he (General Wharton) was put to the trouble of reduc-
ing his order to writing the ordinary costs must be paid.
Burn asked who was to pay them ? " You, to be sure,"
said the General. On which Burn exclaimed, " I will not
be robbed." General Wharton asked him to whom he ap-
plied that observation ; to which Burn replied, " To you
and your colleagues." The General desired those present
to remember what had been said, on which Burn became
very abusive, and continued so while the General was com-
mitting the proceedings to paper. The Learned Counsel
submitted that, under these circumstances, he was entitled
to the rule ; a Magistrate in the exercise of his duty must
be protected from insult.—Rule granted.

SECONDARIES' OFFICE, Nor. 15.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.-PAGE V. DEAN.

This was a writ of inquiry before Mr. JAMES, the Se-
condary, for the assessment of damages in a case of false
imprisonment, the defendant having allowed judgment to
go by default.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS said—The plaintiff is an engraver,
whose son, being in the same business, had been employed
to engrave some heads for the defendant, who was a part-
ner in the respectable firm of Mundy, Dean, and Co.,
printers. The heads were engraved, but in consequence of
some previous dealing which led the young man to suppose
that it would be advisable in him to get his money for the
job on delivery, he refused to had over the plates without
the two guineas which he had been promised upon perfect-
ing the work. The plaintiff was present at the time of
his son's refusal to give up the plates, and the consequence
was that father and son were taken into custody by the
desire of the defendant, and after having been detained an
hour and a half at the Mansion House on the charge of
having feloniously detained the property, were discharged
when the case was represented to the Lord Mayor. The
defendant had been cautioned by the plaintiff as to the un-
warrantable course pursued by him, but he thought proper
to persevere, and the plaintiff was obliged, after having been
exhibited to the public gaze as a felon, to seek recompense
for the injury.
The facts were proved.
Mr. C. JONES made a speech in mitigation of damages,
which were assessed at 101.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nor. 15.

HANDIAY AND JONES V. EDWARDS.

This was a cause respecting the validity of the will of
Mr. John Edwards, formerly of Stank-hill, and late of
Leamington Priors, in the county of Warwick, who died
on the sth of October, 1835. The bill is opposed by Mr.
William Edwards, the nephew of the deceased, on the
grounds that fraud and conspiracy had been employed by,
Mrs. Hannah Edwards, the widow of the deceased, in pro-
curing the said will, at a time when the alleged testator was
in a state of complete mental imbecility. A responsive
allegation was to-day offered on behalf of Messrs. Handley
and Jones, the parties promoting this suit. Dr. Lushing-
ton, on behalf of Mrs. Edwards, opposed the allegation.
The King's Advocate appeared for Messrs. Handley
and Jones, and supported its admissibility.
Sir HERBERT JENNER went through the circumstances
of the case, and concluded by sending back the allegations
to counsel, to be generally reformed.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Nov. 15.
THE KING V. WILLIAM LYONS.

Mr. C. PHILLIPS, for, the prosecution, observed that it
was instituted by the directors of the St. Katharine Dock
Company. The immediate charge was one of assault ; but
at the same time it involved matters of great importance to
all trading on the river Thames. The person assaulted
was James Clear, foreman of the Dock-gate men of the
Dock ; and the defendant was a lighterman, in the employ-
ment of a Mr. Turpin, of Lambeth. The lower class of
these lightermen had a strong antipathy to the St. Katha-
rine Docks, and used every species of annoyance, particu-
larly in obstructing the entrance to them from the river.
To prevent these obstructions it was necessary that the
dock-master should be armed with considerable authority.
Property to an immense amount was at stake. Upwards
of 8,000 craft, besides 800 ships, many with most valuable
cargoes, were locked in the St. Katharine Docks durii4
the last year. Under such circumstances the company felt
it their duty to assist in the present prosecution. The
Learned Gentleman next proceeded to detail the parti-
culars of the assault.
Mr. PAYNE, for the defendant, called two witnesses,
lightermen, named Clark and Atkins, who deposed to the
struggle between the prosecutor and the defendant ; but it
turned out, from the admission of one of them, that he him-
self was aiding in the obstruction.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS replied, and the jury found the prisoner
Guilty. •
The CHAIRMAN, having consulted with the Bench, pro-
ceeded to pass sentence in the following terms :—" Prisoner
at the bar, you have been found guilty of an atrocious as-
sault upon the prosecutor, who was properly obeying the
the orders of the Dock Master. It is absolutely necessary