The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-16 00:00:00

DI VIDENDS.

Jan. 6, H. and J. Nutter, and T. 'Wake, Hudders-
field, Yorkshire, rzl-frchants—Jan. 14, T. R. Dixon and G. J.
Heckman, George-street, Snital-fields, sugar-refiners—Jan. 7,
R. Slater and J. Slater, Samlesbury Mill, Samlesbury, Lan-
cashire, cotton-spinners—Jan. 25, C. Fearne, Old Broad-
street, London, merchant--Jan. 7, W. Davidson, Liverpool,
merchant—Jan. 6, W. Sandford and .T. Box, Salford, dyers—
Jan. 18, J. Thornley, Manchester, hat-manufacturer—Jan. 6,
A. Little, Honley Wood Nook, Yorkshire, clothier—Jan. 8,
J. Rothery and T. Pape, heeds, seed-crushers--Jan. 13, T.
,Butcher, Mitchel Dean, Gloucestershire, timber-dealer—Jan.
14, S. Sampson; Size-lane, auctioneer—Jan. 25,.G. Davison,
Upper Berkeley-street, Portman-square, upholsterer—Jan. -14,
R. Carter, Hertford, farmer—Jan. 18, It. It. Ward, Maiden-
lane, Battle-bridge, mustard-manufacturer—Jan. 7, T. Pcir-
son and W. Sammon, Russia-row., Milk-street, Irish factors—
Dec. 17, J. Vincent, Regent-street, Marylebone, victualler—
Dec. 17, It. H. Day,•Tovill, Kent, seed-crusher--Jan. 14, A.
Anderson, Salters'-hall-court, Cannon-street, merchant—Jan. 7,
E. Edmonds, Newport, Monmouthshire, draper.
CERTIFICATES, Jax. 4. _ _ _

W. Paull, Tamivorth, Warwickshire, tanner—J. Rider,
Broad-meet, merchant--T. Pearson, Walford, Stafibrdshire,
maltster—T. Clarke, Gainsborough, draper—T. Pearson, Hip-
perholme-cum-Brighouse, Yorkshire, butcher— W. Durrant,
Castle-street, Finsbury, tailor—G. Perfect, jun., West Mai-
ling, Kent, surgeon—C. Symonds,. Watling-street, warehouse-
man—F. Richardson, Cheapside, warehouseman-IV. King,
Cavendish, Suffolk, grocer—W. Cattell, Cotton-end, War-
wickshire, corn-dealer.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

R. Newman, J. Winter, and W. Whitcsmith, Old Fish-.
street, grocers, so far as regards W. Whitesmith—R. and T.
11. Hasluck, Birmingham; merchants—F. Hall and N.
'froughton—J. Thompson at J. Cook, st. Helen's, Lancashire,
shoemakers—J. Rylands and .T. Thorgpson, St Helens, Lan-
cashire, shoemakers—Sir W. Curtis, R. H, Clarke,,C. Curtis,
and R. H. Clarke, jun. Wapping, biscuit-bakers—J. Brown
and W. Jolly, Brighthelmston, grocers—S. Browning, W.
Adley, G. Baker, T. Browning, A. W, Peircy, .I, Foreman,
A. Marlborough, and S. Hodges, Whitstable, Kent, okster-
merchants, so far as regards W. Adley—S. and J. Scholes, S.
Wolfenden, and G. and J. Scholes, Oldham, Lanca-
shire—G. Robinson, River-green, and JRobinson, Stanning-
ton Lough-house, farmers—W. Wilson, P. Woodnorth, R.
Barker, and F. Davis, Egremont, Cumberland, paper-mann-
facturers—T. Hobson and R. Bayman, Pendleton, Lancashire,
dyers—J. and H. Merry, Birmingham. • military ornament-
makers—S. W. Forres and B. Mitchell, Marylebon-street,
Wood-street,
Wagstaff and. S. Evans, Maiden-lane,
Wood-street, Cheapside, straw-hat-manufactiirers—J. Preston,
and S. Strickland, Great Chapel-street, Broadway, West-
minster, ironmongers—W. and F. Lawson, York, booksellers
—R. A. Cottle and W. Thomas, Aldermanliury, attornies—
W. Bryan and C. Aylward, Gough-square, Fleet-street, news-
paper-agents—J. Williams and A. Gordon, Bristd, importers
of wine—J. Dickinson and. G. Brownless, Leeds, brush-menu..
- •
facturers.

There were two indictments against this defendant for• per-
jury. An application was made by-Mr. SCAIU.ETT on behalf
of the prosecutor to postpone the trial on account:otthe absence
of a material witness, whose attendance he had in vain at.
-tempted to ensure. In answer to this application, on the part
of the defendant, the witness was produced in Court.
./slo evi.
dente being offered, the defendant was acqiitted in the case
where the record was in his own power; and in the other :the
prosecutor withdrew the record.
• ...

• THE XING V. BIGNOLD. „
. This was an indictment against Mr. Bignold, -late Se-
cretary to the Norwich Union insurance.Companf,forperjury.
On a Fortier day, Mr. Scanii:TT,: on behalf of the prose-
cution, moved to postpone the trial on account of the absence of
a material witness named John Hunter, alleged to be in France,
on an affidavit expressing a belief that he was induced to absent
himself in order to avoid giving evidence against the defend-
.ant, and suggesting that he did so from a corrupt expectation
of reward. Time caving been given to Mr. Bignold to answer
this affidavit,
Mr- SoLicyrou-GENERAL, for Mr. Bignold, now pro-
duced the affidavit of that Gentleman, denying that he, or any
person under.his sanction, had either given or promised any re-
ward to trunter for abstaining from giving evidence ; expressing
his belief that Hunter woultl-prove on cross-examination to be
a material witness for his defence; stating that Punter was in-
debted to him on a judgmentitalleisAini of 1504,- and declaring
that he was most anxious to expedite the trial.
SCARLETT,. in reply, adverted to a letter which had
been received from Hunter, containing these expressions,-" I am
anxious-to hear when the trial of Bignold will chine to, when. I
will come over. I liopo I. have strength of mind enough to Ire-
sist„,---you know what. "l'he Learned Counsel contended that
this evidently implied an expectation of an' offer, and. that it
was not improbable the writer might wait to. see if such offer
would be made.
The LORD CHIEF 'JUSTICE directed that the" Case should-
stand over, so, as to give time for.the arrival of,the witness in
London. --

THE XING v. BAXTER.

This was also an indictment for perittry. The prosecutor did
not appear to support it, and the defendant was of course ac-
quitted.

ASSAULT.-DUKES J. SCALES.

Mr. SCAILLETT openell this case to the Jury. rt was an
action to recover compensation for a violent assault. The
plaintiff' occupied a house and garden at Bow, near Stratford.
The defendant, who was a butcher, occupied the adjoining
premises ; and he trusted the issue of this cause would teach
him, that he was not with impunity to extend his professional
habits from quadrupeds to his fellow-creatures; for, however
justifiable it might he to •knock down an ox, human beings.-
were not to be treated in the same way. The facts of the case
were these :—On the 2tith of June, the plaintiff being from
home, one of his sons was amusing himself in sending a-i)g
into a pond at the bottom of the garden, .which adjoined the
garden of the defendant: the defendant upon' this came ttp,
and with a pitchfork knocked off the dog's under lip. When
the plaintiff returned, he was informed of what had occurred,
and, very naturally, expressed his indignation:at such -citielty ;
but this produced no other result than a brutal attack on him-
self, by which he was knocked down, and, as he lay on the.
ground, was ferociously beaten with a blndgeori. For this
wanton injury he now sought recompense. • •
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, admitted that a verdict.
must go against his client ; but he trusted' the Jury would agree
with him in thinking that the damages ought to be of the most.-
trifling description. The truth was, that the-dog to which.allu-
sion had been made, was a fierce and 'powerful'animal, and Was.
'in the constant habit of worrying the defendant's pOtiltry; • and'
was thus enraged on the day in question. Indeperidenf of this,
the plaintiff himself was in the practice of shooting the defend.
ant's ducks and fowls, and had actually killed thirty•-fire; after
which he had summoned the defendant to . the Court- of Re-
quests for the • injury which he had sustained. In the present
instance, the plaintiff' had threatened to thrash the•defendant ;
and, in consequence, he went into his garden to see. if he would
put this threat in execution. He afterwards retired; and as hii.
son was also retiring, the plaintiff struck him with a willow-.
stick several times across the arm ; and it was this provocation
which led to the violence complained of. After this he thought
the plaintiff was as unjust in bringing this action into Court,
as he was in summoning the defendant to the Court of Re-
quests, to pay for the injury his fowls had done, after the fowls
had been killed.

Mr. SCART.ETT in reply said, that his friend did not deny
that his client was entitled to a verdict, but had desirecno,cut
down the damages to a slight sum. Now, in answer to this,
he had only to pray in aid the pieces of spud which had been
•produced, and which, when used by a powerful butcher, suffi-
ciently shewed the ferocity of the attack; and he trusted the
verdict of the Jury would teach him to refrain from similar at-
tacks in future. The Jury would -also take and keep in their
minds the (cruelty of the attack upon the dog, which was suffi.
cient to excite the indignation of any humane man. •
The CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up the evidence,
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101.;
costs, 40s.