The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-13 00:00:00

GROUSE SHOOTING.

Shooters who boast of their acquaintance with
London gun-makers, and who talk of their feats in
the shooting galleries, and of having slain pigeons at
Battersea, and pheasants in my Lord Battue's pre-
serves, are wofully disappointed on their arrival in
the north. It may not be out of place to enumerate
some of the causes of their disappointment,—
all of which cannot be provided against, but the
mention of them may put the stranger on his guard,
and he will do well to provide against such of them
as he may think will else inconvenience himself. He
is out of training and cannot walk. His equipment
is incomplete. His pivots are choked up. His caps
will not fit. His wadding and cartridges
are cut for a gun of very different gauge.
His dogs, never having seen any other
winged game than partridges and pheasants,
will not point grouse ; they are wild, not being any
longer under the eye of the keeper ; one of them
scours the country half a mile in advance, and the
other will not suffer a bird that can be put up to
remain on the ground; on being thrashed, one of
them turns sulky, and the other dashes away full
cry after sheep. Birds are wild, and the shooter
has no shot larger than No. 5. His
shoes are thin, and cling to his feet like so much
whit Leather. It is excessively hot, he is overladen
with shot, and his India-rubber gaiters will not absorb
the perspiration nor suffer it to evaporate ; his
stockings are consequently soaked with wet. His
hat is heavy—it will neither resist wet nor is it ven-
tilated. He is, when the sun shines, half roasted,
and, when clouded, half starved; or he is lightly
clothed, and caught in a thunder-shower. He
wears thin stockings, and is footsore. He
is lost in the mist for want of a guide, a pocket-
compass, or a previous intimate knowledge of the
localities, and inadvertently becomes a trespasser,
when a glorious row ensues, ending, perhaps, in a
struggle fur the encroacher's fowling• piece ! The
beau-ideal of a sportsman, as regards dress, is often-
times carefully studied—the new-comer is inevitably
marked by some absurdity in this way, but his
tout ensemble is soon metamorphosed amongst
bogs, berries, and peat holes, and he is too late
made aware that hs ought to have bestowed
a thought upon his comfort and convenience, rather
than on his dress. It he does not tire himself by
Walking beyond his strength, probably over useless
tracts, in the early morning, he most effectually ac-
complishes that object in the hot sun at noon, and is
not only rendered incapable of following up the sport
in the afternoon, but he feels exhausted the next
morning.—From the Rod and the Gun; by Wilson
and Oaldeighi

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
MATRICULATION EXAMINATION FOR
HONOURS-1849.
The following candidates have obtained honours:—
IN CLASSICS.
Dicey, Edw. Jas. Stephen
(Exhibition)
Heath, Richard Child ..., University College
Janson, John William University College
Franks, Henry James

MATIIE3IATICS AND NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.

French, H. (Exhibition) Wesley.Coll.liut.' Taunton
Gibsone, Burford Waring King's College
Gurney, William
Powell, Joseph
Ambrose, William
i Dendy, William Saffery AsnershamGrammarSchool
Murgatroyd, George AmersharnGrammarSchool
Bleby, Henry William
Langford, William Private tuition
Parfitt, James Rossiter
Olive, Eustace Henry

CHEMISTRY.
Money, Fred. John (Prize of
Books)
Wilkinson. Richard
Hadow, Edward Ash Bristol Medical School
Roberts, William
Roscoe, Henry Enfield University College
Lambert. Henry Stone Queen's Coil., Birmingham
Franks, Henry James

BOTANY.

Laurence, John Zacharias
(Prize of Books) University College
Wilkinson, Richard

ZOOLOGY.
Fry, Edw. (Prize of Books) University College
Flower, William Henry University College
Mooney, Frederick John
Moore, George
The Examiners in the respective subjects were—
IN CLASSICS.—Rev. Dr. Jerrard and T. B. Burcham,
EslNq.
MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.
Rev. Professor Heaviside and G. B. Jerrard, Esq.
IN CHEXISTRY.--TrOfeSSOr Graham.
IN BOTANY.—Rev. Professor Henslow.
IN ZooLocY.—Dr. Carpenter.
The number of candidates for matriculation was 179,
and the number that passed the examination was 167.

CHARGE OF FORGING A WILL.—The magistrates
of Croydon. on Saturday, were engaged for a consider-
able time in investigating a chlige against the reputed
vti:e of Jacob King, a man who died at Addiscombe, on
the 25th of July last, of cholera. It seemed that Mr.
King, some hours before his death, asked for his cash
box; but the key could not be found, and the brother of
the deceased broke it open. One of Mr. King's labourers,
Amos Gower, was in the room at the time rubbing the
unfortunate genth man with brandy. Deceased asked
him whether he could write, and being answered in the
affirmative, Mr. King directed him to sign the will,
which was taken out of the cash box, and he did so, the
other sub:,cribing witness being " Dick," his brother.
This will could not be found, and it was suspected that
the reputed Mrs. King had concealed or destroyed it.
On applying at Doctors Commons it was found that
another will, dated September, 1841, had been deposited
there, the witnes•ses to it being two persons named
Tomlin and Church, and by which the whole of Mr.
King's property was bequeathed to Emma Church, the
defendant, to the exclusion of the deceased's daughter.
The magistrates said there were sufficienl grounds to

justify them in remauding the defendant; but they al-
lowed her to depart on entering up hail, herself in 1001.,
and two ether sureties in the like amount.

SOUTHAMPTON.—THE FOREIGN MAILS.—We stated
in our second edition last week that the Government
had refused to accede to the requisition of the Liverpool
merchants to make Plymouth the West India Mail
Packet station, and that the Government authorities
were about to remedy the inconveniences at present felt
by the inhabitants of the northern towns, in conse-
quence of the occasional delay in the delivery of the
foreign mails beyond London. This delay arises prin-
cipally when the mails arrive at Southampton on Satur-
day afternoons, and which could be remedied by dis-
tributing the foreign mails at Southampton and forward-
ing them to the north via Basingtoke, Reading, Oxford,
and Wolverhcmpton ; or by having them sorted in the
General Post-office on Sundays, and dispatching the
northern foreign letters by
.the Sunday night mails, in-
stead of detaining them until the departure of the Mon-
day mails.—We understand that the Government
authorities have been at Southampton to ascertain the
time taken to dispatch the foreign mails.— Hanapshi re
A deo tiser.
The thunder-storm on Thursday did great damage
at Altrincham, Todmorden, and Holmtortb. A storm
of thunder and lightning, followed by heavy rain, raged
round Portsmouth, between the hours of nine and eleven
on Saturday evening, and from the intense vividness of
the electric fluid it is to be feared considerable damage
must have taken place. The storm appeared to fall with
great force over Ryde, in the island.
PLYMOUTH, AUG. 12.—A1l the vessels detained hero
on account of the blockade are proceeding fur their
respective ports of de,,tination.

TATTERSALL'S-THIS EVENING
Six O'CLOCK*

BT. LEGER.

15 to 1 sgst Uriel—taken

DERBY.

40 to 1 agst Voltigeur--taken

EBOR HANDICAP.
6 to 1 agst Giselle
8 to 1 agst Ellerdale—taken.
8 to 1 agst Ma:ton—taken
12 to 1 agsi, Glen Saddel—taken
12 to 1 agst Cockermouth—taken

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT.—Croydon, Aug 11.
CIVIL COURT.
THE SWANSEA DOCK COMPANY V. LEVEINE.

In this cause, which was mentioned in Saturday's
paper, it appeared that, after the parties had agreed to
nave the question disposed of by the Court as a special
case, some difference arose as to the points that were to
be reserved, and the result was, that the matter stood
over till this morning.
The CHIEF BARON, who had several times intimated
his opinion during the case, that it was perectly useless
to occupy the time of the Court, when, in the result,
there would be no facts to leave to the jury, the whole
question being one of law, again this morning urged
upon the parties the propriety of settling the matter by
a special case,

forr the t'rtheiasnith
ce
ILteAaNrNnEeLdLC, Counsel
who,
weiotnasuml tre.dpteothageeneke an
,r,
wasd
Upon
u
plaintiffs, said he was so satisfied with the pro-
priety of thu course that was suggested by his Lordship,
that he should take upon himselt to accede to it.
A discussion then took place as to what points were
to be reserved; and
Mr. CHAMBERS, who was for the defendant (with
Mr. Bovell), said the principal point upon which he
relied was, that the plaintiffs had not the legal right to
make the calls in question; but he would not bind him-
self to state any particular ground upon which it was to
be supported.
Sergeant CHANNELL said he would not consent to
any such general proposition, and he considered the
plewitla ought to know %hat particular pleas were re-
lied upon, as they might be turned round when they
went to the Court upon a technicality which they were
not prepared to meet. lie was willing to render every
facility to an arrangement, but he must take care, at
the same time, that the interests of his clients were
protected.
Seine further discussion then took place, and there
appeared a probability of the case going on.
The CHIEF BARON, however, interfered, and asked
the Learned Counsel whether they would consent to this
—that the general point relied upon !should be that
stated by Mr. Chambers, and it should be left to him
(the Chief Baron) to state to the Court the points of
law involved in the pleadings, upon which they were to
give their decision.
The Counsel on both sides expressed themselves con-
tent with w
foritht hhtise plaintiff,arrangement, and at length a verdict was
entered
subject to a special case to be
submitted to the Court above.
ROBINSON V. PRINGLE.
This was a special jury cause. The action was one of
ejectment, to recover possession of a piece of land at
Norwood, by reason of an alleged breach of one of the
covenants of the lease granted to the defendant.
Sergeant Channel' and Mr. Bramwell were for the
plaintiff; Sergeant Shee, Mr. Gurney, and Mr. Ogle for
the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action, it appeared, was a gentle-
man carrying on business in the city of London, and who
had a country residence at Norwood. The defendant
was a gardener, and wine yeai obv the plaintiff, it. rip.
grunted him a lease of four acres of laud, adjoining
his own residence, for the purpose of his convert-
big it into a nursery garden ; but, in order to
prevent annt,ytsnce ..to himself and family in
his own residence, by reason of the proximity 01
the land in question to it, he stipulated in the lease that
the place in question should be strictly used for the pur-
pose specified only, and that it should not be converted
into a public tea-garclen. or to any similar purpose likely
to cause annoyance to the plaintiff. The alleged breach
of covenant consisted in the defendant having built a
summer-house and pigsty, and what was most com-
tibined of was the erection of a sort of hovel, or cottage,
which it was represented he intended to make use of as
a residence for himself and family.
Several witnesses were called to make out that the
erection in question was intended as a permanent resi-
dence, but the evidence did not at all clearly establish
that tact.

The CHIEF BARON remarked, during the examination
of one of the witnesses, that he did not think the mere
circumstance of a person occasionally sleeping in the
place ought to be considered as constituting it a dwell-
ing-house, any more than if the defendant had chosen to
bivouac on the ground all night, and the one act would
no more justify his ejectment for breach of covenant
than the other.
Sergeant SUER, in addressing the jury for the defen-
slant, characterised the action as most harsh and arbitrary.
lie said that the defendant, at great pains and expense,
had converted au almost barren piece of ground into a
luxriant garden,
and this was an attempt to deprive him
of the possession of it upon a most frivolous pretext. The
erection in question, instead of being intended as a
dwelli..g-house, was solely used for the purposes of
keeping the tools in, and the fireplace was for drying the
seeds, and he said that such places were always erected
in nursery gardens, and it would be idle to attempt to
contend that they would constitute a breach of covenant,
such as would justify turning the defendant out of pos-
session.
Witnesses were then examined who proved the state-
ment of the Learned Sergeant with regard to the mild.
ration of the garden, and who also expressed their
opinion that the building complained of was not intended
for a cottage, but was merely a seed and tool-house, ne-
cessary for the purposes of the defendant's business. It
was admitted that a man occasionally slept there, but it
was only for the protection of the property.
The CHIEF BARON having summed up, the jury, who,
on Thursday had, upon the application of the defendant,
been to take a view of the locus in quo, after a very short
deliberation, returned a verdict for the defendant.
The business of this court continues very much in
arrear. Mr. Sergeant Dowling having concluded the
business of the circuit upon which he had been specially
employed, joined this circuit to-day, and upon his being
applied to, he consented to try some common jury causes.
Should the Learned Sergeant continue to du so, it would
be a great relief to the suitors, to many of whom the
expenses of an assiz! trial must be almost ruinous.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, Aug. 10.
NISI 1-)B1US COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
Charles Davis, 17, was indicted for having, at Hor-
field, on the
.29th of July, feloniously and maliciously
shot at George Ward Nash, with intent to do him some
grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Skinner prosecuted, and Mr. M'Mahon defended
the prisoner, who. it appeared, was keeping the birds
from the wheat, when the prosecutor and a roan nsmed
Lock entered the field. lie called out to them not to go
among the wheat; they came up to him, and Nash struck
him, on which the prisoner discharged his gun at Nash,
burning his hair but providentially doing him but little
injury, most of the charge passing by him, except two
or three shots, which struck him on the back of the head.
The jury
acquitted the prisoner of the felony, and
found him guilty of an assault, for which he was sen-
tenced to three months' imprisonment.
Thomas Perkins, 16, was indicted for cutting and
wounding James Nash,
at South Hamlet, on the 4th of
May, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.
It appeared that the prosecutor was in the employ of
Mr. Guest, a
contractor on the Gloucester and Berkeley
Canal, and he went into a stable to get a strap, where
he encountered the prisoner, who said, " If thee'st take
that strap, I'll stab thee." Suiting the action to the
word, ho drew a knife out of his trousers pocket and
instantly struck Nash with it in the middle of the right
arm. The wound did not appear to have been of a very
serious nature, and it was dressed at the Glouceeter in.
firmary.

The jury convicted the prisoner of an assault, and ho
was sentetced to three months' imprisonment.
Margaret lifultate, 21, was brought up by a writ of
habeas corpus fro:a the gaol of Bristol, and indicted
for maliciously stabbing George Br.) ant, at St. Ste-
phen':., on the 29th of May, with intent to maim and
disfigure him.
Mr, Powell prosecuted. The prisoner, who was undo-
fended, cried most piteously throughout the trial.
The prosecutor is a labourer, at Bristol, and on Whit-
Monday last went with another young man to the
theatre. Bryant, after leaving there, was walking along
the
quay with a female, when the prisoner came up,
and, using abusive language, struck him in the arm
with a knife. He felt down, and the prisoner again
struck him in the right side with the knife. He was
confined in the hospital for a fortnight. The prosecutor
conducted himself with so much levity in the witness-
box, that the Judge threatened to commit him.
In her defence, the prisoner said Bryant's brother
kept company with her,
but the prosecutor was jealous,
And had beaten and kicked her several times because

she would not yield to him. Ile had dune so on the
night in question because she had resisted his solici-
tations.

The jury found the prisoner guilty of an assault only,
and she was sentenced to three months' imprisonment,
on which she fell down in convulsions, and was carried
out of court.

Julin Millard, 40, removed by writ of habeas from
Bristol, was indicted for cutting and wounding Elizabeth
Millard, his wife, with intent to kill and murder her.
The following are the facts of this case :
On the 13th of July last, about eight o'clock in the
morning, the prosecutrix went out to work, leaving the
prisoner at home. Feeling unwell she returned home at
ten, when she missed a gown and a shawl. She asked
her husband what he had done with it, and he commenced
abusing her, threatening her, and saying, " I will be your
murderer." She was alarmed, and ran from the house, but
Millard fetched her back, dragged her into the parlour,
locked her in. and went into the kitchen, where he
sharpened a knife, with which he returned, and again
swore he would murder the woman. He knocked her
down, and cut her Mice across the nose between the
eyes, so as nearly to sever that organ from hcr face.
She was taken to the hospital, where her wounds were
dressed, and she was found to be much bruised about the
body. It appeared that he had beaten his wife at inter-
vals from ten until three o'clock, when he used the
knife. On the policeman going to the house, he found
the prisoner lying on a bed, quite unconcerned at the
horritile outrage he had committed. There was a pool
of blood on the parlour floor, and also a knife.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and
Mr. Baron RuLFE ordered judgment of death to be re-
corded against him.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT—Lancaster, Aug. 10.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
The court was densely troweled to hear the trial of
an indictment preferred by Mr. John Richardson, a
member of the Lancaster Town Council, against Mr.
John Battersby, of that town for an assault. The in-
dictment was preferred at the last Spring AiSiZ3i, and
the defendant had traversed to the present assizes. The
case excited more than ordinary interest, on account of
its having arisen out of some electioneering dispute.
Mr. M•Aubrey was counsel fur the prosecution; and
Mr. Segar for the defendant.
His LORDSHIP threw out a suggestion, that the
parties ought to come to some amicable settlement; and
after this hint from the Judge, the counsel engaged in
the case having conterreci with each other, _
_ _

Mr. SEQAR, for the defendant, said that.he was ready
to admit the fact of the defendant having committed an
assault on the prosecutor, Mr. Richardson, under the
influence of excited feelings, from his having been mis-
informed as to some alleged expressions of Mr.
Richardson, which were said to be disreipectful to his
father.

Mr. AVAIIBREY, after calling his Lordship's attention
to the aggravated nature of the assault, and especially to
the circumstance of Mr. Richardson having been as-
saulted at his own door, and struck several severe blows
with a whip by the defendant, said that he could not
recommend his client, Mr. Richardson, who was a gen-
tleman of great respcctAbility, to COMe to any arrange-
ment, unless on the condition of the defendant publicly
apologising for his offence, and presenting such a sum of
money as his Lordship should think proper to the Len-
caster Dispensary.
His LORDSHIP thought that Mr. M'Aubrey was quite
right, and had exercised a judicious discretion in
offering to bring the matter to a friendly conclusion
upon such terms.
Mr. SEGAR thereupon said, that the defendant was
sorry for what had taken place, and that he publicly ac-
knowledged his error.

The defendant then pleaded Guilty, and was fined 101.
z be raid to the dispensary.
CIVIL COURT.—(Bk.fore Mr. Justice WIGIIT3IAN,
and a Special Jury.)
BROCILLEBANK V. RAWLINSON.

This was an action on the case for obstructing a wa-
tercourse, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty,
and denied the plaintiff's right to the water, as stated in
the declaration.
Mr. MARTIN (Mr. Cowling with him) stated the case
for the p:aintiff, from which it appeared that he was
the occupier of a corn-mill, called Little Mill, on a
stream or creek of water rising on the moors above
Dalton, and he complained against the defendant that
by the erection of saw-mills, and a steelmanufactory, and
diverting the water to supply them, be had diminished
the supply, which the plaintiff and his predecessors
had enjoyed from time immemorial ; and that
the quality of that which did still flow
was rendered less useful by sawdust and rubbish from
the defendant's works. The plaintiff's mill was one of
three formerly belonging to the Abbey of Saint Mary,
and when the domain was seized by the Crown, it was
granted to the predecessors of the present owners. One
of those mills was called the Orgreave-mills, and was
about nine years ago converted into the steel works
complained of, the saw-mill being a modern erection,
and in 1840 the defendant made certain " cloughs," for
the purpose of diverting the water to his works, and
thereby got the command of the water entirely; and
Mr. Martin said that as this was ancientwatercourse, he
had clearly no right in law to do that. The law was
quite clear that all persons having works on the banks
of such a watercourse had a right to the free use of it;
but they must permit all that was not so used to flaw
freely forward, and no man had a right to assume the

command of the water, and suffer it to"flow or not, as he

might think proper, by erecting reservoirs or otherwise.
The derendant had done that, and by forcing it down
au ()Yu' Cl•iw tlr. rc ha.l boo.a an onatrwhali loss of water,
and the plaintiff's mill was thereby entirely deprived of
water three months in the year, and he was therefore
entitled to a verdict.

Mr. Justice WIGnTMAN here interposed, and sug-
gested that as a verdict was all the plaintiff could get
there, which would leave the injury still unredressed, it
would be better to refer the n atter to some one, giving
him power to decide how the water should be enjoyed
in future,. and the injury cotnpluintd of redressA.
After a little demur on the part of the plaintiff's attor-
ney, that suggestion was finally adopted, and a verdict
was entered for the plaintiff, subject to an award.
The business of this assizes nded here before five
o'clock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Catherine Murphy was brought before Alderman
Gibbs, charged with having committed the desperate
assault described in the following evidence:—
Mr. William Reynolds, of Nu. 39, Bishopsgate-street,
draper, said Friday night, about seven o'clock, the pri-
soner came into my shop and said she wanted to buy a
dress. After the dress was cut off she declared that she
had paid for it. My wife, who had been serving her,
called me forward, and the prisoner repeated that F. be
bad put down the money on the counter. I said, "If so
it must be here; I'll clear the counter and look for it."
I did so, bat no money was to be found. I then said I
would send for a police-officer. The prisoner said,
" What, send for a police-officer for me? I'll soon put a
ear the
e a
violent
stop to that." I said certainly I would send for one, as
f m
ey
blowwas. onSthhee ihmeamde. d hidey
turnedustand
learn wherestruck
m
then no notion that she was armed with a knife; she ran
back and came towards me again, and I then observed a
knife in her hand. I seized her wrist, and found that I
was wounded in the hand. I called my wife, and she
wrenched the knife from the prisoner's hand, and in the
act got a slight cut in her own hand. The prisoner then
turned and bit my arm severely. I found that I was
wounded on the back of the neck, that I had two wounds
on the back of the head, and one on the left temple. The
back of my shirt was cut through, and I bled a consi-
derable quantity for about half an hour. I sent for a
neighbour, who dressed the wounds, and afterwards I
sent for a surgeon, who said the wounds were dressed so
well he would not disturb them. _ _

Mrs. Reynolds (wife of the last witness) said when the
prisoner came into the shop she pointed at a particular
piece of printed cotton, and said she wanted six yards of
that article. I cut her off the dress, and the prisoner
then asked for three yards of calico lining. As I was
folding up the goods I said to her they came to 4s. 3d.
She said she had paid me. I said " I have never seen
your money. Where did you put it?" She replied that
she had laid it on the counter. I looked for it, but there
was no money there.
Alderman GIBBS—Were you so near to her as to be
able to observe her closely? The witness—Certainly I
was. I was close to her all the time, and had never seen
any money in her possession, and up to this time there
was no one in the shop but the prisoner and myself. I
then called my husbaud, and told him what had taken
place. and then he said he would send for a policeman.
She flew at him, attacked and struck him. I ran to the
door and called for assistance, and my husband called
out, " She has a knife." I ran and took the knife from
her. He was bleeding from the head at the time. A
policeman arrived, and she was given into custody. I
assisted in washing the wounds. I found one on the
back of the neck three inches in length, and two on
the head, one of which is about two inches long. That
wound bled profusely, as did the wound in the temple.
Martha Murray said, I was sitting, about four o'clock
yesterday afternoon, in Bishopsgate-street, taking care of
my father's oyster-stall, when I observed the prisoner
sitting on the kerb-stone, at the corner of Two-Swan-
yard. After two or three minutes I saw her sharpening
on the stone a black-handled knife, which I believed to
be the one produced by the policeman. She then looked
at the edge of the knife. She remained where I first
saw her from an hour and a half to two hours, occa-
sionally sharpening the knife, and examining it during
the whole time. I then missed her, and I did not see her
again until she passed in the custody of the police-
man, and I had never seen her before the time I first
mentioned.
John Scott (626) stated that when he was called into
the prosecutor's shop he found the prisoner and the pro-
secutor struggling together. Witness pulled her away,
and detained her. She was afterwards secured, but she
had no money of any kind in her possession.
Alderman Gnus then asked, in the usual manner,
whether the prisoner wished to say anything.
She replied, looking carelessly roue 1,." Nothing at all."
The Alderman then committed the prisoner £:4r having
feloniously cut and maimed the prosecutor, with intent
to do him some grevioas bodily harm.