The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-25 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Leicester, March 23.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice PATTE-
SON and a Special Jury.)
TYLER AND WIFE V. DUDLEY AND ANOTHER.
This action was in trespass.
Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Macaulay for the plaintiffs;
Mr. Whitehurst and Mr. Barnaby for the defendants.
The plaintiffs in this action are in an humble station
in life, living at Wineswold, in this county, a village
'about five miles from Loughborough. The defendants,
the Rev. J. Dudley and Mr. Danvers, are two of the
Loughborough bench of magistrates. The wife of the
male plaintiff had quarrelled with a neighbour, named
Mary Crooks. For this she was brought upon a war-
rant before the two magistrates in question, who, having
nojurisdiction, dismissed the complaint, but mulcted
her in 1/. 18s. costs, leaving her the alternative of going
to prison, if she did not pay, and she was sentenced to
fourteen days' imprisonment and bard labour. The
poor woman went to prison, but it being,thought strange
that a party of irreproachable character should be sent
to prison for costs in a case wherein the magistrates
had no jurisdiction, inquiry was set on foot, and the
commitment being bad on the face of it, a memo-
rial was sent to the then Secretary of State for the
Home Department (Sir James Graham), who instantly
ordered her discharge, with an admonition to the ma-
gistrates to be careful in such cases for the future.
The husband had brought an action for the lose of his
wife's services, &c., during the time of her imprison-
ment, which lasted for eight days, but 51. being pair
into court, he accepted that. The present action. was
brought jointly in the name of himself and yitife, and

to this also they had paid 5L into court, pleading:'
further damage. The case would have been tried at
the last assizes but for an affidavit stating the absence,
on the part of the defendants, of a material witness'
In the meantime the case, at the instance of the defer.
dents, was made a special jury ; and now the witaes,
upon whose account the case had been postponed, was
not called.

The jury found for the plaintiff—Daniages, 15L, in'
eluding the 5/. paid into court.
The. Commission for the Southern division, at Coven:
try, has just been opened. The calendar is hear)'
but the offences charged are in the majority of case"
light.

CRIMINAL COURT.—(Before Baron PARKE.)
Joseph Tyler, abed 11, was charged with shooting 11'
Mary Sarson on the.loth of August last.
Mr. Wing prosecuted.
The pros.ecutrix was gleaning in a field at Que„eir
borough, about half.:past seven in the morning. Ili
soner came into the field with a gun, which he pointed
at a young girl named Gresley, and it made a clicking
noise; be was then about five yards from her. The Pr':
secutrix asked him why re his mother was, if she via'
gleaning in another field'? He replied, t. No, she 1131,
got something better to do." He th'-n said, " I'll shoot
you," and raised the gun and fired it at her, the On;
tents lodging in her lace, head, and neck. lie was very
near to her, and she fell down. This evidence ,vn
confirmed by other witnesses, who also proved ,:t
when he came into the field, some children asked if the
gun was loaded, and he said it was.
The surgeon, who had attended the girl for the
i
juries she had received, stated that he, at first, thoer
it dangerous, though she had now recovered.
The boy, in his detente, said that when he went int°,
the field Greasley and Sarson challenged bim to 5139°'
them, and thst Sarson said, he might if he liked;
_thf4,
however, denied this statement. He was found Guilty
of a common assault, and .entenced to six months' mu.
prisonment, with hard labour.

THE KING OF SPAIN.
id
The following paragraph appears in a Paris purl)
called the Semaine. The circumstance to which 3
alludes, whether true or false, has been freely epokell
of in the French capital for some considerable timer"
"Is it, or is it not, 'true that in an obligation under
seingprive, written entirely by Don Francisco de Assig'
in January, 1840, this Prince declares that to recoil.
pense the services rendered or to be rendered, the s'"
vances made or to be made, the measures past al°
come, having for object his marriage with Queen DP
bella 11., of Spain, he constitutes himself debtor to
Messieurs.
which shall become due at the moment of the oifiCii"'
celebration of the said marriage; that the said 510
shall be considered, as a holy and sacred debt, Ws'
ing even before the obligations of the State,
and that in order that the engagement subscribed Mei
have force and value, notwithstanding tbe
nority of his Royal Highness the Infante Don
Francisco, his august father has taken part in the
contract in order to emancipate him specially as regards
the contracted obligation, and to make himself respon-
sible for it ? 2. Is it or is it not true that this obli-
gation, signed by the Infante's father and son, was de
posited with a notary at Paris ? 3. Is it or is it n..?;
true that a retrocession of 3,000,000 f. on the 8,000,00 t
forming the amount of the obligation, took place the
same day on the part of Monsieur in
favour 0:
Count de to enable him to recompense the service,
rendered directly to the Infante for the seine object an,!.-
from the same cause ; that on the sth of October f?'
lowing Count de -- consented in his turn to the de-
legation of 125,000 francs to Monsieur C°lls.
quence of two journeys made to Madrid by the latter'
and that this obligation stipulated that the interest
that sum should be due to the said Monsieur -1
from the day on which the condition forming the ha ~1
of the said obligation should be accomplished, usb",
the day on which the payment of the capital should
.1
entirely effected? 4. Is it or is it not true that the leri,
existence of the obligation deposited with a notarytge
we have said above, is proved by an ordonnance de refs
of the month of February, 1344, rendered contradict° a
between —, who profited by principal obligation, sa
the depositor who pretended that the deposit had
been made for four year's? 5. Is it or is it not tie,
that the magistrate before whom the affair came tbe
Glared that the documents were sufficient to warrant •
prorogation of the deposit until 1848? 6. Lastly, igv,
or is not true that in a document signed Feb. 5, 1840%4
the person who principally profits by the obligation'
following division is made:—Five-eighths, that is, tk
million francs, divided into six parts, three-sixths, be 4
to Monsieur one sixth to Count de one 0
_ „.,
to Monsieur and one-sixth to Baron de