The Sun.
London, England, 1824-08-25 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDFORD, TUESDAY, AUO. 24.
Before Mr. Baron GRAHAM.
TUE XING L. ItUTTEE.
This was an indictment against the defendant for an assault
upon Samuel Linstead and Richard Bedwell, officers in the
Excise.
Mr. BoLLAND opened the pleadings.
Mr. Serjeant Owe Low stated the case to the jury, the parti.
claims of which will be seen from the following evidence.
Richard Bedwell, examined by Mr. MAURYAT.-1 am an
Excise-officer. I had in my possession, on one occasion, a
warrant to arrest the defendant Samuel Rutter. A petition was
preferred by the defendant for a mitigation of the penalty.—
tie paid to East, the other person named in the warrant, the
sum of M. in my presence, in May, 1823. He fixed on the
July following to pay the remainder. He appointed with Mr.
East and me to meet him at the Bell, in Houndsditch. Mr.
East was there at the appointed time. I was a little later, as I

was unable on account of other business to attend punctually.
This appointment 'not having been kept, I went to Peckham
fair, in the county of Surrey, to look for him, on the 21st of
August. That was the first day of the fair. I found him there
attending his booth, which was called the " Freemasons'
Tavern." I told him he was not a man of his word, as he had
not kept his promise. He said he was very sorry, and the
reason he had not come was, because he hadn't got the money.
I asked him whether he had the money. He said no ; but if I
would come down the following evening between seven and
eight, he would pay it, and would be much obliged to me. I
accordingly went down in company with Samuel Linstead, an
Excise-officer, and told Mr. Rutter I was conic in consequence '
of his, appointment. He told me to walk into the dancing-room
(a laugh)—ot into the ball-room, and he would pay me. I
(lid so, and then he said, " Those who take money generally
stand treat." I told him the money was no benefit to me, I was
come down on business, hut I would have a bottle of porter,
for which I paid ls. 3(1. Mr. Rutter, and Mr. Linstead, and
myself drank it. I then asked him for the money, as I had
some business in town, and wanted togeteltecie. - lie asked use
whether I had got a receipt, I told him I had, and he said,
" Lay it down, and I shall pay you." Accordingly, I drew
a copy on a blank piece of paper—not on a stamp. Mr. Lin-
stead had the stamp in his pocket, anti Mr. Rutter asked me to
let hint take it, and show it to a friend of his, which he did, and
then returned it to me, telling me to write it on the stamp. I
did so ; and then asked him for the money. He said he
would come directly, " What a hurry you are in !" I then
waited for a considerable time, and asked him repeatedly for
the money, telling him I had business in town, and a few
minutes could make no difference to him in paying the money.
He then asked me if I hail got the body warrant ? I told bun
"No ; I did not come there to arrest him." I had come there
according to his own appointment. He then said he would not
pay me, and made use of the worst possible names, which he
applied to me. Ile said we were two informers come there to
extort money front him. I said, " Mr. Rutter, lam surprised
at you, this is not the treatment I expected ; you appointed that
I should meet you here." He then repeated that we were in-
formers, in a loud voice, and then pointed us out. There were
at least two or three hundred persons in the booth at the time.
Sonic other people in the room said to us, " You know you are."
This was about nine o'clock at night. Rutter then continued
to call us informers, and said to the mob, "Give it to them;
kill them I" and used more bad names. There was a consta-
ble in the place with a staff, and Linstead applied to him for
protection, and the constable shoved him out of the dancing.
room into the drinking-room. I don't know .who the man was.
I had never seen him before, nor do I know that he was a con-
stable, only that he had a staff. I then went' after Linstead,
and Rutter continued crying out to the mob, "They are bloody
informers, give it to them." I had a black-thorn stick in my
hand, which was broken by the people about us. I said, We
are no informers, but officers come on revenue business." Rut-
ter still kept setting the mob et us. I was knocked down, and
my left foot was very much hurt. Rutter had seen the warrant
and read it in Smithfield.
Samuel ',instead was then called, and corroborated all the
main facts deposed to by the former witness, and stated that he
had been very much hurt io the affray.
e d Rutter peace_
Chas. Greenland examined.—l am an Excise permit writer.
I was in a booth at Peckham fair, called the Freemasons' Ta-
vern, in Augaist last. I saw ',instead there in company 'with
another officer. I heard Rutter say, " You have had 5/., and
now you come to receive another." The people abused the
officers.
Win. East. examined by Mr. Sergeant OrigT.OW.—l am an
officer in the Excise. On the 26th of May I received 5/. frOm
the defendant Rutter. I showed him the warrant, and he ap.
pointed to pay the other 51. at the sign of the Bell, Hounds.
ditch. I went there according to appointment, but the defend.
ant did not attend. This was on the sth of June. On the 4th
of February, 1824, I arrested him:
John NI ibis, examined by Mr. 3114111LYAT.—I am an Ex.
else officer. I We 14.10 Peckham fair with Be4syell, in August.
liedwell asked flutter for the remaining Al. which was due,
and Rutter told him to call the next evening and he would pay
him.
Mr. Am:um/Iva addressed the Jury for the defendant, and
calleofficercaic Itc
d
Georg
rentirigeeiSnaovnotirly'of w liTtgdiets)t, seda'n'sdf°altltoevrnds 's a
Stetphneebyaall-nrdooPne;etkinohar. I
in fairs.
dare slayhathdearesmtafrighatnitti wasavebee
n at stationed
n at
e
at
time about Ti or 600 persona in the ball-room. They paid a shil-
ling each for admission. My duty was to keep the door clear.
Mr. Rutter was stationed inside to receive the money, about a
yard and a half from me. I heard high words between the two
prosecutors and Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Mutter's partner, respect.
ing the payment of some money. I went up to them, and told
them that was a very improper place .to break the peace. I
was a peace officer, and could not allow it. They said they were
officers, and required my assistance. I said, " If you be officers,
I am surprised at your breaking the peace ;" and I asked them
for their authority. They said they were revenue officers.—
The witness went on to state that the defendant bad, front first
to last, believed with the utmost propriety, and had never used
any offensive language towards, still less had he treated the
officers with violence, either by gesture or otherwise.
Two other persons, named Joseph Powell and John 'Walter
Griffiths, deposed to the same effect. The former described
himself as cook on board the Royal Sovereign Ramsgate steam-
packet, and the latter as a special constable pf the Thames
l'olice. Both these persons denied that the defendant had be-
haved with any impropriety towards the Excise-officers, or that,
he had used any offensive Language ; but in some of the colla-
teral particulars of the transaction they varied materially front
the statement ot' the first witness. For instance, the latter ad..
mitted that lie saw Savory push the officer out of the booth. Ile
also admitted on his cross-examination, that for the last four
years lie had never done any duty as an officer of the Thames
Police, and that in fact he had resigned his situation. although
he considered himself still as a special constable. His present
employment was that of a surveyor and road-keeper.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM, in summing up the case for the Jury,
oheerved, that they had a very painful duty to discharge on the
present occasion, inasmuch as their verdict, whichever way it
was given, must condemn the witnesses on the-one side or the
other, as persons who had come forward to commit the most
wilful and corrupt perjury. Ills Lordship must leave the case
to their discrimination and good sense, in order to find their way
to a just conclusion on its merits.

The Jury, after deliberating for some time, retired to consi.
der on their verdict, and after being out for a considerable time,
returned a verdict at the Judge's lodgings of Guilty.

TUE lING V. SIR JOLIN VIIILLIUOILE AND LIEUT. Awnniew
IMEw.

This was an indictment against-the defendants for an out.
ragmen: assaith upon Mr. Richard James, author of " Naval
History of Great Britain." The peculiar circumstances of
this ease, which have already been fully before the public, ex-
cited considerable interest, and its discussion was expected to
afford some amusement ; but as the hour of trial approached,
a negociation took place between the Counsel on both sides,
which ended in an arrangement, that the defendants should
submit to a verdict of guilty, and pay all the costs of the pro.
secittion, which, it is supposed, will exceed 1001.
A Jury was now sworn, and. Mr. ADOLPIMS, who wale
Counsel for the prosecution, informed the Court of the arrange..
ment above.mentioned ; and that Mr. Holland, who was Coun-
sel for the defendants, was instructed to consent on behalf of
his clients to a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. Bot.r.arm rose and informed the Learned Judge, that
he was so instructed, and accordingly a.verdict of Guilty was
recorded.

James Sewell, Michael Howe, and Alfred Townsend, were
indicted on the Coroner's inquisition with feloniously slaying
and killing John Oxley.
It appeared in evidence, that the deceased and the prisoner
were at a public-house at 3litcharn: on Sunday, the 4th of
July, and that Oxley being in liquor, and of a quarrel-
some temper, insisted on fighting with the prisoner Sewell,
which the latter refused, and even when knocked down by
Oxley, refused to fight him. He then left the public-house,
and was followed by the deceased, who still insisted on
quarrelling,_ although the prisoner offered him a pot of porter
to be friends, but the other still pursued him, and at length his
temper was raised, and a pugilistic battle took place, which the
witnesses proved was a fair stand-up-tight: After fighting tbr
10 minutes, Oxley received a blow on the throat, which proved
the cause of his death. It appeared that Sewell showed the
greatest forbearance, and was the first to get medical assistance
for the deceased. The other two prisoners were their seconds.
Under these circumstances, the Jury, by the direction of the
Court, acquitted Bowe and Townsend, the seconds, and found
Sewell guilty of manslaughter, who was sentenced to one
month's imprisonment.
Alfred Leach, James Barnett, Richard Smith, John Dillon.
Thomas Smith and James Miles, were indicted for stealing

from a bleaching-ground at Beddington 30 pieces of printed
muslin, value 601., the property of Samuel Makepeace.
On behalf of Dillon a case of clear alibi was established ; and
the Jury brought in a verdict of Nut guilty for him, Barnett,
and Leach and Guilty for Miles and- the two Smiths, but re-
commended the younger Smith to mercy, on account of his
youth.
Miles and Smith were sentenced to transportation for seven
years, and the boy Smith to one year's hard labour in the. House
of Correction.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, A uo. 21.
(Before Mr. JtitliCe BATLEY.)
ELLIOT V. HARDY.
Mr. PARSE said this wasn replevin brought against the
defendant, for wrongfully taking, under a distress, the goads
and chattels of the plaintiff, upon Alnwick Moor. There were
12 avowries, of which the substance was, that Alnwick was tin
ancient borough; that a right of comnion had been granted to
the free burgesses or Alnwick by William de Vesci, in the
reign of Henry IL ; that the plaintiff was not a free burgess of
Alnwick; that be had therefore no right to pasture his cattle
on the said common ; that the defendant was a free burgess,
with aright of pasturage on it, and that he had therefore dis. '
trained the cattle of the plaintiff which were wandering upon it.
The defendant also made cognizance under the Duke of North-
umberland. To these avowries there were 7 pleas in bar, stat-
ing, among various other facts, which, to an unlearned person,
appeared to be introduced for no other purposes save those of
contusion and mystification; that the grant of the right of the
cthoemilli'locinen;.sfcriont?
the earliest
Corporation
tiine
ooft.
Alnwick;detiViaet
memory the Corporation had enjoyed and exercised the right of
appointing a hard to take care of the cattle on the common, and
of allowing him certain stints upon it in remuneration of his
services; that the plaintitl. was at present the herd appointed
by the Corporation ; that he had, in consequence, a right, as
their servant, to depasture a certain number of cattle upon the
common ; that the defendant was no freeman, and that, even
if a freeman., he possessed no right to distrain on the plaintiff's
cattle.
Mr. BROUOTIAM—They were perhaps aware that in the
neighbourhood of the town of Alnwick was an ancient moor of
more than 3,G00 acres in extent, called Alnwick-moor, or
Aydon-forest, a piece of ground, which from its vicinity to
the town of Alnwick, was of great convenience to its inliabi-
tants. The questions which the Jury were impanncled to try,
related to the enjoyment of aright of pasturage upon that moor.
It not being denied that the Corporation of Alnwick had exer-
cised the right of appointing a herd for many generations past,
the real question which they would have to try would be, whe-
ther the plaintiff' as the herd of the Corporation, and not as
a freeman, had a right to claim pasturage for a stint or
more on Alnwick-tnoor. If he should succeed in making out
that right, he should succeed in every point which he wished
to carry. Now the extent of the moor, and the tight of
the free burgesses to depasture upon it, were not immaterial
to the question which they had to try ; for If the herd were
appointed to take care of the cattle, it was only reasonable that
lie should be paid for his services in some way or other; and
the best way of payini4 for them was in the way which he con-
tended that the herd had been paid for many generations back,
by receiving a right to pasturage upon that common.
The witnesses were principally, old men, who deposed that
they recollected the moor from their infancy—that the herds,
who were sometimes freemen and sometimes not, had been al-
ways allowed stints on the moor, and that they had never heard
any objection made to such a practice till lately. The free-
men at present had each a right to stints on the moor; for-
merly they had a right to five; that number was found to be
too great, and had consequently been reduced. The number
of stints allowed to the herds were found to vary from 4 to 16.
One herd, who had been allowed to pasture two cows, a gallo- ,
way, and twenty sheep on the commoni.had employed one of
the witnesses as his servant—he had gtven him 31. 10s. for
wager, and had allowed him, by a species of subinfeudation,
to pasture ten sheep on the moor. (in cross-examination, it
was extracted from him that the corporation had built a house
for the herd on the moor, which was still standing—that they
had been involved in a lawsuit with the Earl and Countess of
Northumberland about it more than 60 years ago; that there
had been more than one dispute between the Corporation and
the illustrious house of Percy about the royalties attached to
this moor—that the Corporation had granted leave to a clergy-
man of the name of' Romney to turn his beasts upon the
moor—that he had turned them on till the freemen -had ob.
jetted to it—and that the herd had brought his action in the
County Court against a freeman for his fees, but he had failed
in recovering them.
The books of the Corporation were then put in evidence, and
several appointments of herds from the year 1600 to the present
time, made by the fbbr Chamberlains, and four and twenty men
were read to the Jury. In every case a right of pasturage was
granted to the herd; in some money also. There was one entry
into the books, whereby the Corporation threatened to disfran-
chise certain free burgesses, who had failed to pay the herd's
fee, in case it were not paid by a specified day.
Mr. SCArtLETT then rose to address the Jury for the defend-
ant. The defendant was a freeman of Alnwick, and as such
claimed right of common upon Alnwick Moor. The Corpora-
Aion claimed a right to appoint a herd to take care of the cattle
upon that Moor; and that right his client did not at present
• intend to dispute. They claimed, however, a further power—
namely, that of giving a right of common to their herd ; and
that too to any reasonable extent. The defendant considered
the gift of this right of comment to be an encroachment on
his own rights and those of his brother's burgesses; he had
therefore distrained on the herd's cattle for the purpose of
disputing It, and the result of that measure had been the
result of the present action. The plaintiff's evidence proved
that they had letten pasturage of sixteen stints to one man,
and of four to another; that they had granted part of the
Moor to the herd, which he had enclosed by their orders,
and on which they had afterwards built him a house; that
they had further granted him leave to take hay of another por-
tion of the moor, and what was more material to the considera-
tion of the Jury, had allowed him even to levy a sum of money
from the freemen for every head of cattle that they sent upon
the moor. The mere right of common could never have given
them such rights as they had exercised. The exercise of those
rights belonged to the right of soil • and a right of common did
not give a right of soil. If, then, the Corporation of Alnwick
had illegally usurped the right of soil for many years, as he
contended they had, nothing which they had done under it
could tend to establish their title to a right of common. lie
was of opinion, that lie had proved from his Learned Friend's
own evidence, that there was an end to his Learned Friend's
case; but in order to render certainty doubly sure, he wouhl
now show by evidence of his own, that the Corration of
Alnwick, as they called themselves, had not even a leg to stand
upon.
The three grants of the De Vescis were then put in, They
' were not read, but were taken as read, as was also a grant
made to the Corporation of Alnwick, in the time of Henry VI.,
the order of the four and twenty men, dated 31st of 3lay,
1013, which Mr. Searlett bad read in his speech, and also the
indenture of 1762, between the Earl and Countess of Northum-
berland and the Corporation of Alnwick.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY, who in the course of Mr. Scarlett's
speech had frequently expressed his dissent from the legal con-
struction which Mr. Scarlett had put upon some of the deeds
which he had quoted, observed, that it was quite clear to him
that the Corporatiox had no authority to grant a right of com-
mon to strangers; but he did not look upon the herd as a
stranger. The herd was employed to look after the cattle of
the burgesses by the Corporation, to whom the rightful common
had been granted for the benefit of the burgesses at large. The
corporation had therefore a right to remunerate him for his
services, either in money or in some other way. It was proved,
that from time immemorial, the usage had been to give him
pasturage fot so ninny stints, and he did not see that any valid
objection had been raised to that usage.
Some discussion took place upon this declaration between the
Learned Counsel employed in the cause. As all the facts ne-
cessary for the formation of an opinion by a superior Court had
been established in evidence, anti as certain points of law had
arisen in the course of It, on which the Learned Counsel had
determined to take the opinion of the Court of Common Piens,
from which the process issued, and into which it was observed
that none of the Counsel engaged in the cause could follow it,
it was at last agreed that the Jury should find a verdict for the
plaintiff,ed on one of the issues that a r it of common for two stints
l: with four guineas dam es, and that they should also
fl
for each herd (there are now three , was a right of common to
a Fi
a reasonable extent, and such as t e Corporation would grant
to them in future.