The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-22 00:00:00

LAMBETH.

Theodore Windley, Camden street, Walworth,
broker; G. Turvey, 4, Boundary-lane, Camberwell,
broker ; Thompson, 2, Surrey-buildings, uphols-
terer; Thomas Thompson, ditto ; George Turvey, the
younger ; and Richard Vincent, 13, Alfred-street,
Peckham, were placed at the bar Wore Mr. Seeker
(who sat for Mr. Elliott), on a charge of stealing
from a farm, in South Parrott, Dorsetshire, eleven
cows, of the value of 1001., the property of Mr. Jahn
Little.

Mr. Clarkson, the barrister, with Mr. Whitaker, the
solicitor, of Lincoln's-inn-fields, attended for the
prosecution ; and Mr. Roberts appeared on behalf of
the prisoners.
From the statement of Mr. Clarkson, it appeared
that some years ago a person of the name of Lane had
set up a colourable title to part of the estate of Sir
Alexander Hood, situated in the parish of South Par-
rott, in the county of Dorset, and had on various oc-
casions served notices of ejectment en the tenants in
possession, with a view of establishing his legal right
to the property, and Sir Alexander was compelled to
defend them. On every occasion when the cases were
set down for trial Mr. Lane neglected to make his
appearance, and was of course non suited, but still
Sir Alexander Hood was not only very much ha-
rassed at the vexatious proceedings of his opponent,
but also saddled with considerable expenses. On one
occasion, by the oversight of the clerk of Sir Alex •
ander's attorney, Lane obtained a judgment in an
action of ejectment, and possession of some cottages
was delivered up to him in due course of law. On an
application to a judge the proceedings and judgment
were set aside, and the repossession of the pro-
perty given to the tenants of Sir Alexander. At the
beginning of the present month, Lane signed a war-
rant to distrain, as the alleged landlord, on the goods
and chattels on Abbot's Farm, in the parish of South
Parrott, in the county of Dorset, alleged to be in the
possession of a person named Job Newbury, for 1001.
rent due at Michaelmas, 1849, and placed it in the
hands of the prisoner Windley for execution. The
distress was levied, not on the property of Job New-
bury, but on that of Mr. John Little, the owner of
Abbot's Farm.

Mr. Little was called into the witness-box, and on
being sworn, deposed that seven or eight years ago
he got possession of Abbott's Farm, in the parish of
South Parrott, Dorsetshire, from Sir Alexander
Hood, a part of whose estate it was, and to whom he
had paid 2,500/. for it. He knew a person named
Job Newbury, but had not underlet the farm to
him, nor had he the slightest interest in, or control
over it, and the whole of the stock on it was his, Mr.
Little's, own bona fide property. On Monday
morning last, at an early hour, he left home, for the
purpose of going to Yeovil fair, and had not been
long in the fair when he receivel a message to say
his presence was required at home. He in conse-
quence returned, and was told that eleven cows,
which he had seen safe on the preceding evening,
had been driven off the farm. He traced the parties
as far as Dorchester, a distance of 1$ miles from his
residence, and their found his eleven cows in a
pound, surrounded by eight or ten men. He was
certain he saw the prisoners Windley and Vincent
amongst the persons present. On the following morn-
ing, at about half-past two o'clock, the cattle were
taken from the pound to the railway station, put into
trucks, and taken by the luggage train to town.
He (Mr. Little) travelled by the same train as far as
Southampton, and then got into another train, to be
in town in sufficient time to consult his solicitor. He
did consult his aolicitor, and by his advice had two
officers (Sergeant Goff, 8, and Romaine, 38, L) to
take the parties into custody on their arrival at the
Waterloo station with the cattle.
Mr. Little was cross-examined at some length, but
nothing particular was elicited. He stated in the
most positive terms that he had not underlet the farm
to Newbury, and that the latter had nothing to do
with it.

Mr. James Farmer, clerk to Messrs. Salter and
Clerk, solicitors, of Chard, Somersetshire, who are
the solicitors to Sir Alexander Hood, was next sworn,
and spoke to the previous actions of ejectment brought
by Lane against the tenants on the property of Sir
Alext,,llder, and his never appearing at the assizes to
try them. The witness also said he had heard the
prisoner Windley say at Dorchester that he had been
to the office of the Secretary of State, and had his
(the Home Secretary's) authority for what he did.
Mr. John Henry Dixon, clerk to the town agents
of Messrs. Salter and Clerk, also gave an account of
the legal manceuvres of Lane, who, he said, had com-
pelled Sir Alexander Hood to defend at least twenty
actions, which had cost him about 6001. On one
occasion he (Lane) was arrested for the costs, when
he took the benefit of the Insolvent Act, but had
been remanded for twelve months for his vexatious
proceedings.
On the part of the defendants Mr. John Edmond
Hughes was called, who said he had been in the
army, but was at present living as a private gentle-
man, in Blenheim place, St. John's-wood. In reply
to questions from the prisoners' solicitor, he said that
he had made an application on this business to Mr.
Mayne, the police commissioner, but not to the
Secretary of State, as had been stated. He knew
the handwriting of Lane, and could swear that the
signature to the warrant produced was his.
Mr. Ford, an auctioneer and appraiser in the
Walworth-road, said he knew the prisoner Windley,
and accompanied him to Abbott's Farm, in Dorset-
shire, and there appraised and condemned eleven cows
for 1001.

In reply to a question from Mr. Clarkson, this
witness said he did not take any pains to ascertain
whether this property belonged to Job Newbury or
not, nor did he care who it belonged to.
The prisoners' solicitorldenied that his clients had
acted with a felonious intention, and therefore the
charge of felony must fall to the ground. With re-
spect to the removal of property, it was quite clear
that, though they acted on what ey conceived to be
good authority, it was not so, and they were ready
not only to restore the property, but to express their
regret for what they had done, and also to afford
every assistance to the solicitors on the other side in
any ulterior proceedings they might wish to institute
against other parties.
Mr. Clarkson agreed to this proposition, and in
addition, that their attorney should give a written
promise that no harassing action should be brought.
This was also done; and the magistrate, in discharging
the prisoners, remarked that though the charge had
gone off as it had the offence was by no means a light
one. They must have known that the removal of the
cattle from Dorsetshire into Middlesex, un ler the
circumstances, was illegal and improper.