The Sun.
London, England, 1825-07-16 00:00:00

SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 16, 1825.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HERTFORD. TiirrnsflaY, Jtruir 14.
CIVIL SIDE.
CRTM. CON.—DOLLING V. WILDIIOIIE.
Mr. PLATT opened the pleadings.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE detailed the case as follows t—Tlia
plaintiff resided iu the town of St. Alban's, and was possessed
of property; he was the father of eight children, who were ail.
still living. His wife was shout the 'same age as iinself.. The.
defendant was about sixty, but his' wife. was ndt living; • he
had a family who were'now arrivcd.at maturity, and for a con-
sideeable period he kept the Blue _Roar Inn at St. Alban's.
Both the parties had been on terms of intimacy The affair
• which led to the present investigation occurred in the month of
March last, and .would be distinctly tir,a)ed by the evidence.
The marriage of the plaintiff and his wife was proved to have
been solemnized in April, 1809, at Redburne.
Joseph Parles, examined by-Mr. PLATT.—llcnow the plain-
.tiff and his wife, and also. the. defenda.nt. In March last.the.
plaintiff's wife was at the shop of Stnithers, a linen-draper in
St. Alban's; it was abOtit- nine.o'clock in the evening. .While.
she was there, I perceiVed the defendant passing, - He made a
stop. Shortly after, Mrs. Dolling quitted...that:hop, when she
was accosted by the defendant near tlie.Bootpublic-house across
the road. They spoke to each other, and then separated—the
defendant to the right hand, and plaintiff's wife straight for-
ward. I followed, and saw them meet near the Pea Hen, just
at the entrance of the town. They walked down the London
road, and then passed throngh a gate into a field of Mr. Goff's.
(The witness described what passed, which, if 'entitled to credit,
could leave no.dOubt of the criminality of the parties.) . I spoke
to the defendant, and told him I knew him, and who he was
with. The' defendant said he would satisfy me, if I would ac-
company
him. He knew me, and took me to Kinder's-gate,
and gave us ss. -each. I went away. Lines was with me.
Cross-eXarnined.:—The- night was cold ; it was not moon.
light ; it was . starlight, but rather lowery. The lamps were
lighted on the. evening in question. I did work at a hat manu-
factory.
_I have quitted St. Alban's three months. I have
since asked money of the defendant, and have received it. He
gave us ss. each and some . I afterwards asked the
plaintiff's wife for money ; she threatened to send for an officer
and send us to gaol. I went away. I (lid not then inform the
plaintiff: I subsequently saw him at a public-house, and. I
understood he knew it. I .now work on, the road. Previously
to that I kept a cart and horse and du;
.gravel. • When I dal-
Jenged the defendant; and said it was Mrs. Dolling, he de-.
'nied it.

Re-examined.—I have known her 14 or 15 years. 1 have no
doubt it was her. I called her by her name, and took hold of
her clnak. She never spoke, hat lam sure it was her.
Thomas Lines examined.— I have knOwn the plaintiff's wife,
seven years. I saw her in Smither's shop one evening in March
.last. The defendant passed. I was with the last witness at
the time. (The witness confirmed the last mau as to what
transpired, as detailed by him.)
Cross-examined.—l work at a hat manufactory. I then
worked at a cotton factory. I called on ,the defendant, and told
hint I had no money, and he gave me some. We also went*to
Mrs. Dolling.
The Lord Chief Justice BEST.—You went to get money ; a
more scandalous transaction there never was:
Cross-examination continued.—My father_ lived in a • house
belonging to the plaintiff'. Mrs. polling managed his aff"aits
money matters, and she•put a distress into my father's house
once or twice.

William Hurst deposed as f,)llo*s t atn- a 'shoerrialter, and
belong tolhe-Hertfordshire. [know. the plaintiff and
the defendant. I know the plaintiff's wife 1 have oftep seen
her and the defendant in a situation which led Me to conclude
an improper connection existed between them, and that on the
plaintiff's own premises. It seas ten Years ago. I.mentioned
' it. I could not then prove it. The plaintiff instituted a pro.:
°ceding against me in the F4tclesiastical Court, and I paid 201.
to stay the proceedings. 1 saw the plaintiff's wife and the de.
tendant coming. front a shed, in IP2I, on 14rd- Verularn's
grounds. I did not mention it to any one,.•becayse I got into
trouble before for it. '
Cross-examinedL-.1 never said that what I have reported was
untrue. '-
Mary Willoughby stated she kneed the plaintiff and his -rife
up to last-March. They:seemed to live happy together. They
have eight children, the :youngest is two years old.
In croasceitantination she said, some time before this transac-
tion Mrs. Dolling.swore'ber life against the plaintiff, and her
(witneSs'sYhiisiband 'was' bound for him.
Mr. ADOLPHUS addressed the Jury in an eloquent speech
on the part .of the defendant.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, animadverted
strongly on the conduct of the plaintiff's two Witnesses, Panes
and Lines, and. Said if such testimony as their': could be cre-
dited, no man's life or character would be free from danger in
future. It was, however, their province to look to the whole of
the case, and pronounce their verdict accordingly.
The Jury, without quitting the box, found a verdict for the•
defendant.

FRIDAY, JULY 15.
WEEDON versus MORGAN.
The plaintiff', Mr. Weedon, is a paper-maker, in an exten-
sive way of business' ' whose mill is situated on a current of
water called the Loudwater-stream, near Ricktuansworth.--
The defendant, Mrs. Morgan, is a lady •of considerable for=
tune, who in 1820 purchased some property in, the nighbour-
hood of the mill ; and the present action was brought on account
of her causing to he thrown into this stream a quantity of
stones and rubbish, by which an obstruction was created to the
power of the water-wheel, by penning back the water upOn
the tail of the mill.

A former action upon the same circumstances Was tried at
the last Assizes in March, when the plaintiff' recovered 601.
damages. The present action was brought for a cnntinuance of
the obstruction from the time of the declaration in the former
cause.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE interrupted Mr. Bolland, who
led for the plaintiff, by recommending that the matter in con-
test should be referred to some person who might regulate the
right of the parties. - '
The Learned Counsel immediately expressed a willingness
to adopt the course which had been proposed, with a view to
put an end to further litigation ' - indeed, he was himself on
the part of Mr. Weedon instructed to make the overture. He.
had no wish in doing so to excite any tiling like prejudice. He
again would make the offer in the truest spirit of conciliation.
Mr. Serjeant TAnDY, who represented the defendant, said
his instructions prohibited hint from adopting the course pro..
posed, which otherwise personally, perhaps, he should have
thought the better course.
After a long trial, the jury brought in a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages- 1;0001.

CROWN SIDE.
CAUTION .A4AINsT ITINERANT Book-vENDEns,--
Samuel Arei..vtittin, a hawker of books, was indicted . for steal-
ing a watch, seal, &c. from the dwelling house of George Pol.
lard, at Hoildesdon.
' It appeared the prisoner had been leaving catalogues of pub.
lications at seVeral houses in the tillage of lioddeson. The pro.
secutor's watch and seal had, been hanging in the front room,
•and being afterwards missed, a person was sent in pursuit of the
prisoner, whos6 appearance had excited suspicion:. On being
approached, he threw Something in a hedge, -which on being
searched for prOved to be the watch, tied up in a hankerchief.
The prisoner at first alleged his innocence, and expresseda wil-
lingness to be seareed, but subsequently ackno,,vledged the theft,
and asked to he set at liberty.
The prisoner being called on for his defence, stated he had
bought the watch on the road for TOs., and having heard some
rumour ofa watch being lost, • to avoid any '.suspicion put the
watch in the hldge, but denied having, admitted his guilt when
apprehended.—The Jury found the prisoner
James Wrench was indicted for stealing a bay mare, the
property of William Rashbrookc.
The prosecutor stated, he lived at Davenharn, in Suffolk:,
and on the Bth of April lost a bay Mare, which he had bred.
She-was a cart mare. - Ilandbills Were circulated. In April he
was shown the mare'in Hertford.

Bacon, a ethistable,
:lit e°e ti
(37)
when
stopped the prisoner nt Sawbridgeworth
t
fair, on the i23ti of April, with: the n;ara ; he said he had bought
her at Barfield, but couldand ntio)et
mtelalroefv:,,,,q,lot,iiten'Ttloieapsritasbolne.er wial:
'the prosecutor. The prisoner was offeling
tstaihikeoewmneadirneatiote.o.riciusal
a bay. mare with a halter, near Dutunow, on the
Henry Turner, a • shoemaker, proved ' that. he saw the pri-
soner leading
'
lith of April-- she- was very warm. Prisoner told him he
hboeruba-hltitltileer, at.L.3ast.refinehladnit she Was very heavy, and he had trotted
is 32 miles froth pumnow. . .
The prisoner called two witnesses, vino proved they saw
'
him go out in March, when he had money ; that Le returned