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

A USTRIA.

The Wiener Zeitung of the 6th gives the following
account of the taking of Raab by the Hungarians :
General Csorich, the commander of the corps in-
vesting Comorn, announces, from his head-quarteri
4t Nogy Lel, that the besieged at one o'clock in the
afternoon of the 33, fell with the-ir whole force upon
the Imperialists s'attoned on the right bank of the
river, whose numbers had been seriously diminished
Lby flying troops, &c., having been sent out. The

MON DAY

Brigade B'areo, which was posted with five incomplete
battalions between Mocsa and Pusta Herkaly, obstinately
resisted the insurgents, who with considerably superior
forces, made a most impetuous attack. General
Csorich on ' learning this, immediately dispatched
reinforcements of all three arms to the right bank of
the Danube. The enemy had, however, taken advan-
tage of his superiority of numbers to turn the right
flank and threaten the rear of Barco's brigade. The Im-
perial troops were, therefore, obliged to retreat to the left
bank of the river, which, notwithstanding the unfavorable
formation of the terrain,' was accomplished in good order.
As the commanding position of the enemy's batteries
rendered it impossible to take away the pontoon bridge,
a couple of the boats were burned. (This is probably
the bridge which had been thrown across the Danube at
Loved, a small place a little to the west of Atsh.) Ge-
neral Csorich is unable to send in a statement of his loss,
as the cannonade still continued on the banks of the
Danube, while his report was sent off. In consequence
of what has taken place the direct communication be-
tween Haab and Atsh is interrupted."
Raab, on the sth, was deserted, there were neither
Imperialists nor Hungarians in the town.
Agram papers state that the Council of the Banat
has passed an unanimous vote against the Austrian
Constitution of the 4th March. The greatest
apprehension prevails' in Moldavia lest the Hunga-
rians that entered that province should follow up their
advantages. The Russians and Austrians at Galatz
were preparing to take flight, and it was even ru-
moured that another corps of 10,000 men, under
General Bern, had entered Moldavia.
The following is an extract from a private letter
received on Saturday from 011mutz
I was told that the Emperor of Austria said
several times at the Privy Council, that
he would be willing to treat with the Hun-
garians ; and yesterday, at the Schoenbrunn
Palace, he said so before his mother, the
ArChduchess Sophia. She was very angry with the
Emperor about his peaceable ideas, and resorted to
very angry words. The Emperor got in a rage at
such unjust remarks, and took his sword, broke it
and placed it at her feet, upon which his mother
was so exasperated that she slapped his face."

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HUME ClRCUl7:—Crolgon, 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 bad agreed to
have 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 perfectly uselcss
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,

Upon this the Learned Counsel consulted together, and
Mr.n
~
Sylva t HAN M w
NELL, who, with r. Peacock, as
for the plaintifL, said he was so satisfied with the pro-
priety of the coarse 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 relerved; and
Mr. CHAmsEas, who was for the defendant (with
Mr. Bevy 11), 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
he supported.
Sergeant CHANNEL!, said he would not consent to
any such general proposition, and be considered the
pliwiffs ought to know what 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.
Some 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,jtate to the Court the points of
law involved in the pleadings, upon which they wore to
give their decision.
The Counsel on both sides expressed themselves con-
tent with this arrangement, and at length a verdict was
entered for the plaintiff, 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 ono of the
covenants of the lease granted to the defendant.
Sergeant Channell 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 sumo years ago the plaintiff, it ap •
granted him a lease of four acres of land, adjoining,
his own residence, for the purpose of his convert-
ing it into a nursery garden ; but, in order to
prevent annoyance to himself and family
.in
his :own residence, by reason of the proximity of
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-garden, 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-
plained 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 fact.
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 oa the ground all night, and the one act would
no more justify his ejectment for breach of covenant
than the other.
Sergeant SnEE, in addressing the jury for the defen-
dant, characterised the action as most harsh and arbitrary.
He said that the defendant, at great pains and expense,
had converted an 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
dwelling-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 culti.
vation 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 ba 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 do so, it would
be a great relief to the suitors, to many of whom the
expenses of an assizo trial must be almost ruinous.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, Aug. 10.
NISI PIOUS 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 man named
Lock entered the field. He called out to them not to go
among the wheat;
The jury 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
wounding James Nash,
or three shots, which struck him on the back of the head.
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
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 be 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, aad it was dressed at the Gloucester in-
firmary,
The jury convicted the prisoner of an assault, and he
was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
Margaret Wallace, 21, was brought up by a writ of
habeas corpus from the gaol of Bristol, and indicted
for maliciously stabbing George Bryant, at St. Ste-
phen's, on the 29th of May, with intent to maim and
disfigure him.
Mr. Powell prosecuted. The prisoner, who was undo-
fendei, 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
with a knife. He fell down, and the prisoner again
abusive language, struck him in the arm
struck him in the right side with the knife. He was
confined in the hospital for a fortnight. The prosecutor
condticted himself with so much levity in the witness-
box, that the Judgn threatened to commit hive.
Iu her di-febee, th,-, prisoner sail Brymt's hrotilf r
kept compt.ny with her, but the prosecutor was jealous,
and had beaten and kicked her several times because

EVENING,

AUGUST 13,

she would not yield to him. He had done so on the
night in question because she had resisted his solici-
tatuflas.

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

John. 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 prosccutrix 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 aked
her husband what he had done with it, and he commenced
abusing her, threatening her, and saying, " I will be your
murderee." 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. lle knocked her
down, and cut her twice across the nose between the
eyes, so us nearly to sever that organ from her 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
horrible 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 RoieFE ordered judgment of death to be re-
corded against him.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Lancuster, Aug. 10.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
The court was densely crowded to hear the trial of
en 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 Assizss, and
the defendant hid traversed to the present assizes. Tile
case excited more than ordinary interest, on account of
its having arisen out of some electioneering dispute.
Mr. M'Aubrey was counsel for the prosecution; and
Mr. Segar for the defendant.
His LORDSHIP threw out a suggAstion, that the
parties ought to Come ti some amicable setttem,nt; and
after this hint from the Judge, the counsel engaged in
the case having conferred with each other,
Mr. SEGAR, 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 disrespectful to his
father.

Mr. M‘ActuaEY, after calling his Lordship's attention
to the a.,;gravated nature of the assault, and especially to
the circumstance of Mr. Richardson having been as-
saulted at his own door, and struck several srfere blows
with a whip by the defendant, said that he could not
recommend his client, Mr. Richardson, who was a gen-
tleman of great respectablity, 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 es his Lordship should think proper to the Lan-
caster Dispensary.
His LORDSHIP thought that Mr. M'Aubrey was quite
right, and had exercised a judicious discretion in
offering to bring the mater to a friendly conclusion
upon such terms.
Mr. SEGAR thereupon zaid, 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.
to be paid to the dispensary. -
CIVIL COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGUTMAN,
and a Special Jury.)
BROCICLEBANK 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. lilmernst (Mr. Cowling with him) stated the case
for the plaintiff, 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, he 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
complaitied 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 flow
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 defendant had done that, and .by forcing it down
an ovorflJw there had been an enormous 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 WIGHTMAN 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 matter to some one, giving
him power to decide how the water should be enjoyed
in future, and the injury complained of redressed.
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 ended 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 No. 39, Bishopsgate-street,
draper, said Friday night, about seven o'elcck, the pri-
soner came into my shop and said she wanted to buy a
dress. After the dress was cut off sho declared that she
had paid for it. My wife, who had been serving her,
called me forward, and the prisoner repeated that she
had 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
stop to that." I said certainly I would send for one, as
I must learn where the money was. She immediately
turned and struck me a violent blow on the head.- I had
then no notion that she was armed with a knife; she ran
hack 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 fining. 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?" Sho 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 husband, 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 tho policeman. She then looked
at the edge of the knife. She remained where I first
saw her from an hour and a half t 3 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 ho 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 Grans then asked, in the usual manner,
whether the prisoner wished to say anything.
She replied, looking carelessly round,:" Nothing at all."
The Alderman then committed the prisoner for hiving
feloniously cut and maimed the prosecutor, with intent
to do him some grevious bodily harm.
GUILDHALL.

Frederick Brittle and Thompson were
charged with obtaining goods by means of forged orders,
and Edward Downer and James Hoare as being the
receivers.
Mr. Herepath, of St. Svvithin's-lane, appeared to pro-
secute, and Mr. Humphreys defended Downer and
Hoare.
Thomas Beekall, in the employ of Messrs. Blundel,
Spence, and Co., colour-manufacturers, of 2, Upper
Thames-street, said, that on the 3d of August an order
was brought by Brittle, and be, by directions of on of
the firm, (?---iivere:t fit'lja of v to ()„
6th, the prisoner received two tons, of ten gallons each,
of turps and oil. Brittle said they were for a Alm

1849, `i

Brushfield, a customer of theirs. Yesterday the pri-
soner came a fourth time, and got another firkin of lead,
weighing 30 41b.
_ _

Alfred Green, 376, said that in consequence of infor-
mation ho received, he Followed the prisoner Brittle,
who was drawing a truck through various streets, until
he arrived at Compton-street, Clerkenwell, when he
stopped at No. 44, and the prisoner Hoare came out and
helped the lad Brittle to take the lead into the house,
after which the latter left, followed by witness, till they
arrived at St. Luke's Church, when he stopped and
asked him if he had taken any lead to Compton. street. •
Brittle immediately replied that he had, and the man
who ordered him to do so would be there presently,
as that was the place where ho was in the habit of
meeting with him. After waiting some time, and find-
ing- the man did not come, he took Brittle back to
Compton-street, and entered the shop, which was a ma-
rine store dealer's, and had the name of Hoare over the
window. lie went in, and saw the prisoner Downer,
who said he was master of the shop, but that his name
was not Hoare, and that he was at his (Green's) service.
On witness asking if ho had not received a cask
of white lead a short time back, Downer said, " And
pray who are you?" and being informed that he was an
officer, he then denied all knowledge of the lead. At
that moment, Hoare came up through a trap door in the
shop, and on questioning him, he said he had lent money
on it (the lead) to a man named William Johnson, but
he could not tell where he lived, being in the habit of
only calling occasionally. Witness then conveyed
Brittle, Hoare, and-Downer to the station-house, leaving
Meredith in charge of the house. On making a search,
a vast quantity of property was discovered of all descrip-
tions, amongst which were 38 new brass cocks, marked
" Twinieg's Patent," 1 large copper scoop, 2 pairs of
new pincers, 2 packets of brass pulleys, 3 new door
locks, with keys and handles, 20 brass fittings, 12 new
farriers' rasps, 7 parcels of new files, 6 new chisels, 5
carpenters' planes, 2 marked " W. C. Boon," 1 marked
" H. F.," 1 marked " C. Mitchelmore," 3 squares, one
being marked " H. F.," 12 mortice chisels, 4 of thetn
marked " C. Mitchelmore," and one ;narked " H. F.,"
1 stock, 5 centre-bits, 6 carpenters' saws, 4 of them
marked " H. F.," 1 eighteen-gallon copper, 1 copper
boiler, 2 • roasting jacks, a piece of brown holland, 1
packet of brass tassel-hooks, 1 packet of colouring, and
a light spring truck, painted green.
Robert Meredith, 368, said that after the last witness
had taken the prisoners into custody, Hoare's wife sent
her son with him to point'out the man to whom the
money was lent. On arriving at St. Luke's Church, he
observed the'prisoner William Thompson standing there,
but on seeing him and the lad approaching he ran away.
Witness overtook him and said that Mr. Hoare wanted
to see him, and they all returned towards the shop in
Compton-street; but when within about twenty yards of
Hoare's; house, Thompson said ho was " down, and he
did not care what became of him." At Hoard's house
they (Green and witness) seized about 800 cwt. of pro-
perty, the most of which they supposed to be stolen.
Mrs. Brushfield, of 198, Kingsla,nd•road, carrying on
business as oil and colourman, said that she was in the
habit of dealing with Messrs. Blundell and Co., but the
orders produced were not in her handwriting, nor did
she authorise any one to write any order. She knew
none of the prisoners.

13oth Mr. ilurnfrey and Mr. Herepath addressed the
Alderman, the former objecting to a remand, and the
latter contending that there was quite 6uffieient evidence
to justify such a course, as the goods which lied been
obtained on all these occasions were found on the pre-
mises of Hoare, and with respect to Downer, he said he
was master of the shop at first, but as soon as he ascer-
tained that Green was on officer, then he knew nothing.
Alderman CARDEN he could not part with any of
them. The prisoner Thompson hid been in prison be-
fore, and his reel name was William Church, and he
could not help thinking that fr,m his appearance, Hoare
and Downer must have known that he did not come by
them honestly, and that the articles iu question were
stolen property. He should remand the case until Wed-
nesday, and refuse to take bail, for there was little doubt
that at the next examination there would be plenty of
owners for the rest of the property.