The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-10 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUl7l—Hertford, July 9.
The commiision for the eouwy cif Herts was opened
on LAuisciay, and, coutet.ry to the usual cuAoaa,
ness was proceeded with in both courts in the after part
of the day. There were 18 causes for trial, five of
which are special jury cases, and 15 prisoners for trial
on the Crown side. The cases tried hitherto have been
quite devoid of interest, and Mr. Baron Parke was
engaged nearly the whole of to-day in trying a case
involving a question as to the warranty of soundness of
some sheep at the time of their sale, the details of which
were of no interest except to the parties. It was ex-
pected that the Crown business would be finished last
night, and Mr. Justice Cullman will then assist in dis-
posing of the cause list.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Abingdon, July 9.
The commission for this circuit was opened here yes-
terday with the usual formalities. Business commenced
this morning at ten o'clock in the Nisi Prius Court, and

soon after eleven in the Crown Court. There were only
six causes and 11 prisoners for trial. Of these one was
charged with manslaughter, one with burglary, five with
larceny, one with bigamy, two with assaults with intent,
&c., and with a common assault.

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
John Plant, a gamekeeper, was indicted for assaulting
Edward I. Wilkinson, on the 28th September last.
Mr. Williams conducted the prosecution; Mr. Carring-
ton the defence.

It appeared, from the evidence of the prosecutor, that
on the day in question, as the prosecutor, who is a hatter,
residing in Broad-street, Reading, and who appeared in
the witness box " bearded like a pard," was going to the
Twyford station of the Great Western Railway, carry-
ing a gun with him for his amusement along the road,
he saw a jay flying near him, fired at it and shot it.
fhe bird fell in a field, some twenty yards off the road.
The prosecutor went in and brought it out, and then
proceeded along the road, but was soon overtaken by the
defendant, who is gamekeeper to Mr. Palmer, one of the
Members for this county, and who, without any notice,
struck him on the neck, and attempted to wrest the gun
from him, and in the struggle fired it off, the prosecutor
having luckily turned the muzzle from his body just as
the defendant was striving to reach the trigger. The
prosecutor, having released himself from the gripe
of the defendant, went on the road, but was
again followed and overtaken by the defendant,
who struck him violently and took away his
gun. The prosecutor, seeing several farmers and farm
labourers near the spot, complained to them, but they
would not interfere, and refused to give their names or
addresses. On cross-examination, the prosecutor said
he had upwards of 1,000 partridge and pheasant
eggs in his shop window; that in the course of 14 years
he had been convicted ten times by magistrates for
offences against the game-laws, and six of those times
by means of perjury; that for this particular transaction
he had been fined by the magistrates; that he appealed
against the conviction to the quarter sessions,
and that there the conviction was affirmed with 201.
costs; and that the prisoner did not ask for his license
or certificate before he assaulted him. A labourer who
was at work in a field near where the shot was fired,
confirmed the prosecutor as to a great part of the trans-
action, and another witness confirmed him as to the in-
jury done to his leg.
Mr. CARRINGTON then proceeded to address the jury
for the prisoner. As the Learned Gentleman was
doing so,
His LORDSHIP said, that in such a case as this he
thought he should be acting in the manner best calcu-
lated to effect the ends of justice by allowing the pri-
soner to speak with the prosecutor.
The parties then conversed for a few moments, but not
being able to come to any arrangement,
Mr. CARRINGTON said he would submit to a verdict
against his client.
The prisoner was thereupon found Guilty, and
fined IN.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE and
Common Juries.)
ANDERSON V. CAMPBELL.

Mr. Keating and Mr. Hodgson appeared for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Whateley and Mr. Selfe for the defendant.
This was an action of assumpsit for a quarter's rent
of a house in Burton-crescent, London, due at Christ-
mas last. The case for the plaintiff was as follows :
The plaintiff, who was formerly a banker, had given up
that business, and had taken recently to building and
buying houses, and letting them. In tho spring of 1843
a Mrs. Neave, the wife of a gentleman holding a high
judicial situation in India, having been obliged to come
to England for the benefit of her health and the educa-
tion of her children, proposed to take the house in
question from the plaintiff, but he, wishing to have some
other security than that of a married woman, a Mr.
Campbell, a surgeon, residing in Burton-crescent, and a
friend of Mrs. Neave, agreed to become the tenant, and
entered into a written agreement to hold it for two
years from Midsummer, 1845. Mrs. Neave then went
into possession, and held it till the end of the term,
when, in consequence of some repairs being required, a
negotiation commenced for a new holding, and a written
agreement for a five years' tenancy, and similar in other
respects to the former one, was drawn up, but was not
executed, Mrs. Neave wishing that the repairs should be
first executed. The plaintiff executed all the repairs
that were required. Mrs. Neave remained in possession,
but the written contract for the new tenancy was not
completed between the plaintiff and the defendant.
However, the rent was paid, as before, by the hands of
the defendant, and the plaintiff considered him as holding
over on the terms of the first taking. In March, 1846,
Mrs. Neave gave notice that she would terminate her
tenancy at Midsummer, and again at Midsummer that
she would leave at Christmas. She left at the latter
period, having paid the Michaelmas rent as soon as it
became due. Soon after Christmas the present action
was commenced.
The case for the defence was, that the tenancy between
the plaintiff and the defendant having expired at Mid-
summer, 1845, the plaintiff then took Mrs. Neave as his
tenant, and the she held on from quarter to quarter as
such tenant, and gave the notices to quit in that charac-
ter; that the plaintiff never pretended to treat those
notices as waste paper while she was in occupation; that
she agreed to hold on only on condition that the plaintiff
should put the house in a proper state of repair, and
especially so as to prevent the chimneys from smoking;
and that this not having been done, she was obliged to
quit. In support of this view, several witnesses, among
whom was Mrs. Neave, were called.
Mr. KEATING replied, commenting on the circumstance
that the defendant did not produce the receipts for rent
given after Midsummer, 1845, and, from that omission,
urging the jury to infer that in those receipts the de-
fendant must have been treated as the tenant, or other-
wise he would produce them.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury, after a few
minutes' consideration, returned a verdict for the de-
fend ant.

SCOTT V. DORGNIS.
Mr. Whateley and Mr. Pigott were for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Godson and Mr. Keating for the defendant.
This was an action for an assault. When the facts
had been open©d his Lordship suggested that it might
be arranged. The plaintiff's counsel thereupon offered
to be content with an apology and a verdict that would
carry costs, but the defendant's counsel would accede to
no terms. It appeared that the plaintiff was a retired
surgeon, residing in this county on a farm, to the ma-
nagement of which he paid great attention. He also
kept a boarding-house, where gentlemen of independent
circumstances took up their abode with him. The de-
fendant, who is of foreign parentage, had been one of
his lodgers for about ten months, when one morning at
breakfast a dispute arose between him and the plaintiff
as to the best mode of " dressing" ma,n,gold-wurzel. The
defendant mentioned one particular fashion. The plain-
tiff sharply contradicted him, whereupon the defendant
said that he knew of course that the plaintiff would con-
tradict him, as he had a mania for contradiction. The
retort courteous, or the lie directaians,d of ws
scratched
rftgeaheteac,
hnawndei
datsnetherhisve ssaedfnetcsafsface.
. nthere-
upondiffereddTahn e
as to which) was thereupon given by the plaintiff, where-
upon the defendant, in a moment of excitement, struck
himpl
plaintiff
u:
assailed
st
wah
ieal
es ndso
said
ihed.e
to Thebe
defendant,p6lg y
a inettr s
only 35. The defendant having made no apology for his
conduct, this action was brought.
On the close of the plaintiff's case,
Mr. GODSON addressed the jury for the defendant.
His LORDSHIP having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 20

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
THIRD COURT.

Edward Lovell, a genteelly-dressed young man, de-
scribed as a clerk in an office, was indicted for a burglary
on the dwelling-house of Mr. James Peachy, a respect-
able pawnbroker, in Goswell-street, St. Luke's, and steal-
ing therein six gold chains, value 201. and upwards, and
divers other articles, his property.
The prisoner was convicted on his own confession,
having been before in trouble.
The Learned JUDGE said, this was a barefaced rob-
bery committed in the open day by smashing a window.
The Court had only one course to pursue, and its sen-
tence was transportation for ten years.
John Duffield, aged forty-eight, who called himself a
reporter, was convicted of stealing two printed books the
property of J. W. Spokes, and other books, from George
Flintoff.

Being a person known to the police,
The COURT sentenced him to transportation for seven
years.
TEIE QUEEN V. DENT.—PROSECUTION FOR LIBEL.
_ _ _ _ _

In this case the defendant's recognizances V were
estreated last session, he not having surrendered to
abide his trial for publishing a libel upon Mr. George
Truwhitt, a solicitor. At that time a writ of certiorari
had been granted by the Court of Queen's Bench for the
removal of the iadictment thither; but it was not lodged
with the clerk of this court until afterwards.
Under these circumstances, Mr. WALKER now applied
to the Court on behalf of the defendant's bail to remove
the es treat.

The fact relative to the certiorari being deposed to on
affidavit, and the application being unopposed,
Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK granted the application.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant-Judge, and a

Bench of Magistrates.)
William Davies was indicted for an assault committed
upon Frances Lloyd, the wife of George J. Lloyd, a so-
licitor, residing at 49, Doughty-street, Mecklenburgh-
square.
The defendant, by the advice of his counsel, Mr.
Payne, pleaded Guilty.
Mr. PAYNE said that the conduct of' the prisoner had
certainly been most extraordinary. He must have been
either mad or drunk on the occasion. He was instructed
that the defendant had been sent by his father, who sup•
plied Mr. Lloyd's family with milk, to request payment
of a bill, and committed the assault upon Mrs. Lloyd
when in 4 att* of intoxication, It NYtts not a cate iu