The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-15 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

WESTERN ClRCUlT:—Dorchester, March 12,

FILLILER V. PHIPPARD.

This was a special jury case, and rather a singular
action. It was brought to recover damages for the
injury sustained by the plaintiff through the carelessly
lighting and burning a fire on the defendant's close
called Cary's Heath ; that the fire spread to the ad
joining laud of the plaintiff, and destroyed a great
many trees and otherwise damaged the premises of the
Mr. Crowder, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. Barston appeared
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Kinglake and Mr. Stock
conducted the case for the defendant.

Mr. CROWDER, in opening the case to the jury, stated
that he should prove that the plaintiff's residence ad-
joined a heath of the defendant's called Cary's Heath,
near Wareham, and that the defendant's shepherd.
a man of the name of Watts, lighted a fire for
the purpose of burning the heath and furze
on Cary's Heath so carelessly that the five,
spread, and did considerable damage to a number of
trees, &c., in an ornamental plantation belonging
to the plaintiff. The amo...nt of the actual damage
done was about 291., but the plaintiff would scarcely
be compensated for the injury which he had sustainthi
by 100/., and in all probability the property, if
would fetch less by that suns than it would if the fire
had not token place. He would prove the negligence
chiefly by two facts :—First, by showing that no suffi
cient belt had been made around the heath and furze
which were to be burnt, by removing a portion of the
surrounding furze, so as to prevent the flame from
spreading, as way usual end proper in such cases ; and
secondly, by showing that there was no one to as-iist
Watts in the event of any accident occurring, as there
ought to have been according to the course invariably
adopted in such cases.
The plaintiff's case being concluded,
Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE submitted that the plaintiff
must be nonsuited, as there was no evidence that Wafts
burnt the heath by the authority of the defendant.
Mr. CROWDER • übtnitted that there was enough to go
to the jury, as it was proved that Watts was a labourer
in the employ of the defendant, and his shepherd.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said that he would not atop
the case, but that he should reserve leave for the de-
fendant to enter a nonsuit as in the present stage of the
cause, and without reference to any evidence which the
defendant might produce.
Mr. CROWDER was quite willing that the defendant
should have leave to enter a nonsuiegenerally, but would
not consent to any condition sought to be imposed by
the Learned Judge.

Mr. Justice CitEsswEnn said he would consult Mr.
Justice Williams as to what c9une he ought to adopt.
The Learned Judge then withdrew fur the purpose of
consulting with Mr. Justice Williams, and on his return
he stated that that Learned Judge was of opinion that
the case ought to be general, and not with reference
merely to the plaintiff's evidence. He should adopt the
course recommended by Mr. Justice Williams.
Mr. Sergeant KINGLARE then addressed the jury for
the defence, and called Watts and other innkeepers for
the purpose of showing that the damage was not the
result of negligence, but of inevitable accident.
The defendant's witnesses assessed • the damage at
only 71.
The case for the defence clearly proved that Watts
took the heath as the agent of the defendant.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL having summed up,
The jury, after considerable consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 71.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Yorh, March 11.
MOWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
The day's proceedings on the Crown side did not ter-
minate until a late hour, all the afternoon and evening
being occupied in the trial of
BURGLARY.—WiIIiam Uempsall, 38, was indicted
for having, on the 22J of last December, at Stillington,
near Yoik, burglariously entered the dwelling-house of
Harry Croft, and stolen therefrom 200 sovereigns, a
cheque for 1701, and other articles.
Me. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Deersley were coun-
sel for the prosecution ; and Mr. Bliss, with whom was
Mr. Overeud, defended the prisoner.
The Learned COUNSEL, in opening the case, stated that
on the night of Tuesday, the 222 of December last,
Colonel Croft was the last person up in his house ; anti
about half-past eleven o'clock on that night it would be
shown to them that the windows and doors of the hall
were fastened before the different members of the family
retired to rest. On the following morning it was found
that a burglary had been committed, and that about
2001. in gold, together with a cheque for 170/, and some
clothes of the colonel, had been taken away, and that
some clothes belonging to the other members of the
family had been strewed about on the floor,
and likewise id the garden. The evidence, he was
bound to state, was almost purely circumstantial, and
when they had that evidence, it would be for them to
say whether the prisoner was the guilty party or not.
Tne prisoner had lived in the service of Colonel Croft as
butler for some length of time, which service he left on
the-22d o. November last. During the time he was in
pkrniosownienrglwe
left
ehries Cacorlvoinoeal
ho Croftkept
was
forahoios
ocsaisdho.rabAleftleeragthole
that service he had frequent opportunities of seeing end
of time out of a situation, and for some time prior to the
burglary exhausted all his funds, and was reduced, in
point of fact, to a state of poverty. Upon the 22d of
December last the prisoner went to a person named
Robert Horsley, who is the ostler at Eldridge's Hotel,
which hotel the prisoner well knew Colonel Croft was in
the habit of visiting when he came to York, and he
therefore made many inquiries of Horsley as to who was
staying at Stillington Hall, and he was informed that
no person was at the hall but the colonel. In the after.
noun of that day the prisoner met a coachman named
James Newby and a police-officer, to whom he stated that
whom
that
hhooe gseav hoe his saw
carpet a ser-
vant
he was going to the town of Sheffield, by the three o'clock
train. That statement, however, was not true, for at four
o'clock he was seen at Dawson's public-house, near to
ifieYnoarne
rklaAilwnany3,sitaatrii,hin:
to Atw
bag, a hat-box, and an umbrella. Between nine and
en o'clock the same night he went again to Dawson's.
took up the articles which he had left, and went away
sufficient .y would
time to go to would perceive
and left York on the following morning.; by the halts
pest five o'clock train. Stillington Hall is about ten
miles from York, so that, bearing in mind that between
nine and ten o'clock he left Dawson's, and left York at
thathalf- pastho
five
would
Stillington Hail, and have committed the burglary with
the next
ample m orannidng!,
which he stood charged. He is next shown to be at
Sheffield, somewhere about half-past eight o'clock. The
prisoner, ocuarriving at that town, engaged a nab of et
man named Yates,: and ordered him to drive to- a person
named Sanderson, whose house is situated in the Wicker.
He got out of the cab there, and presented to Sanderson
a:r-gun, with the folloeing remarkable and strict in-
j inction .—" I give you this gun, but you must not let
any living soul know, that I gave it to you." That gun
belonged to Colonel Croft. After that the cabman drove
him to the shop of Messrs. Levi, clothes dealers (and he
might here state that the prisoner had a day or two
before been heard to say that he was penniless', and
that he had not money enough to pay for a glass
of ale), where he bought a coat fur the sum of
21. 155., a frock coat he. 41. 10e, aril a shooting
coat for 21. 15s. 6d. Thee) things, it wsuld be
proved, he paid for in gold. There was another
circumstance to which he would call their atten-
tion. Mr. Henry Levi, of whom the prisoner bought
those articles, observed that he (the prisoner) had a very
large sum of money in gold, namely, two or three hun
dred sovereigns, which certainly were very likely to at-
tract the attention of Levi. A portion of the articles
which the prisoner ordered were not complete, and he
said he would call again for them, and on being asked
hie name he answered " Wells." On leaving the shop,
he told the cabman to drive him to a person named
Pence, a groom, residing at 7, Smith street, and having
arrived there, he paid the man for the cab, and gave him
sixpence for himself. When he got to the house of
Peace he appeared to be very much tired and jaded, and
on being asked what gave him that appearance, he
stated that he came to Sheffield the previous night at so
late an hour that he (lid not like to disturb them, and
had passed the night in some very improper company.
lie sat down and fell asleep several times during the
day, and it was observed that his shoes were very dirty,
and appeared as if he had been travelling on some very
dirty roads. He retired to bed at. the Mermaid public-
house between ten and eleven o'clock that night, and
on the following morning he was apprehended in
bed by a police-officer, and on being examined
17s. 6d. was found in his possession, and upon the cor-
ner of the window was found five sovereigns in gold.
The prisoner denied that they were his. The_chamber-
maid, however, said that could not be the case, as she
palled the blind down, end had the gold been there at
that time she must have seen it. :These were all the
circumstances of the case which he (the Learned Ser-
geant.) Lad to lay before them, and it would be for them
to say, under all those circumstances, whether the pri-
soner was the person who committed the blurglary with
which he stood indicted.
Colonel Croft was then called, who stated that on the
morning of the 22d of December last he discovered that
the hall had been entered by the drawing-room window,
which might be easily effected, on account of the in-
secure fastening of the window shutters.
Several other witnesses were examined; after which,
Mr. Buss addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner,
and submitted that it was improbable, nay, almost im-
possible, that the house at Stillington could have been
entered from the outside. Ile did not wish to throw
any imputation on the servants of Colonel Croft, but
if suspicion alone was to be brought against the un-
fortunate prisoner at the bar, suspicion, and very great
suspicion, might reasonably be attached to parties who
lived in the house of that gentleman. He also
suggested that it was not improbable that some
person might have seceeted himself in the hall before
dusk, and after the domestics had retired to bed
committed the robbery. He then commented on the
appearance of the dinin 5-room the morning after the
robbery, and treated it as an ostentatious sort of a bur-
glary. He did not deny that a burglary had been com-
mitted, nor did he deny that a great sum of money had
been taken away by the burglar, but contended that this
was a case of suspicion against the prisoner, and that,
under all the circumstances, it would only be fair of the
jury to acquit his client of (so serious a charge. As to
the air-gun, he did not think that it presented such a
strong case against the prisoner as it at first sight ap-
peared. It might have easily been placed in his carpet
bag, or he might have had it in his possession at the
time he was at Daimon's, and it might have escaped the
observation of the witness Ann Marsh. With respect
to the large amount of money which the prisoner was
said to have at the clothes shop of the Jew, the Learned
Counsel thought , itt was impossible for any person to
judge of the sum of money a man had in his possession
by the jingle in his pocket or its apparent weight. The
Learned Counsel then commented on the evidence of
some of tie witnesses w..ith much severity, and, in con-