The Sun.
London, England, 1824-09-02 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

WEST4IIORLAND AgSIZES-.APPLEBY, At4GUST 30.
The Grand Jury of Westmorland are composed partly, of the
saute Noblemen and Gentletnen'air that of Cirlisle, and which
we have before seen, at-the head Of. which is the Right Hon.
William Viscount Lowther.
After the names had been read over, and the Jury sworn, his
Lottlihip-said—

GENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JURY—It reflects great
credit to this County to observe, that there is but one case in
the Calentlar—(the case of O'Neil)—and that not marked by
any particular act of atrocity. It is the case of a man for
burglary, namely that of breaking into a cellar. Now the law
of burglary is so defined, that there' must be an actual break.
ing into the dwelling-house to constitute the capital part ; and
if you have any doubt as to the point, your better way will be
to throw the bill out altogether for the burglary, and find only
for the misdemeanor.

Charles O'Neill was indicted for feloniously and burgia.
riously breaking into a cellar belonging to Thomas Black-
adder, of Temple-Sowerby, with an intent to steal therein, on
the night of Friday, the 14th day of May last.
It appeared from the evidence given in the case, that the pro-
secutor, who is an innkeeper at Temple-Sowerby, in this county,
having discovered that a considerable quantity of spirits was
purloined every night from the stock in his cellar, determined,
if possible, to find out who was the thief. In consequence, he
and his wife resolved to watch the premises on the night of the
14th May last. They appeared to go to bed at their usual hour,
but Instead of doing so, they returned back into their kitchen,
having first extinguished their candle above stairs. They had
not watched long, before they saw the prisoner attempt to enter
the cellar, of which the door had been fastened at the early part of
the evening. After making one or two attempts, lie succeeded in
entering it, but had not been there long before he was appre-
hended by the prosecutor and his wife. Several keys were found
upon his person made for the purpose of opening lock-cocks, and
also a bladder tilled with gin, which he was supposed to hare
drawn from a gin cask of the prosecutor. On being apprehend-
ed, he told the prosecutor that if lie would let him go, lie might
do any thing he liked with him; but the prosecutor told him,
that as he was detected in a felony, be must answer for it in a
Court of Justice. 'As there was some doubt as to whether the
cellar in which the theft was committed was part of the prose-
cutor's dwelling-house or not, a considerable portion of the
examination of the witnesses was directed to that point. It
appeared that the house, barn, and premises of the prosecutor
were all under one roof; that the cellar adjoined to the back
of the barn, but was not in the same straight line with it—that
the barn was over part of the cellar, but not over the whole of
it, and that the barn door was entirely over the cellar. Under
these circumstances, Mr. Baron H uLtocit held, that the
cellar was so attached to the dwelling-house of the prosecutor as
to form a part of it.
The prisoner, being called upon for his defence, entered into
a long and irrelevant statement, about his having been em-
ployed by the prosecutor to conduct some smuggling transac-
tion for him and his wife, both in silks and in spirits, and con-
tended, that if it bad not been for their treachery, he would
never have been in the place in which he then stood. He com-
plained, that after all the capital bargains which he had put
into the hands of the prosecutor, it was a cruel recompense to
be put into prison. He solemnly protested that lie was inno-
cent of the burglary which had been laid to his charge, and de-
clared that he was in the cellar of the prosecutor for no other
purpose than to superintend the delivery of some smuggled
spirits during that night.
Mr. and Mrs. Illackadder were recalled, and swore most dis-
tinctly that there was no truth in the statement made by the
prisoner. They had never been engaged in any smuggling
transaction either in the silk or in the spirit trade.
The Learned JUDGE summed up the evidence; and the
Jury returned a verdict of Guilty against the prisoner.
Mr. Baron Hut.i.ocx then ordered sentence of death to be
recorded against him.
The prisoner entreated his Lordship to consider his cnse with
completion ; he had a wife and six Alberich children, who
were entirely dependent on him for support. He Implored his
Lordship again and again to consider his family.
'Mr. Baron Hu r.t.0c1i..--How can you expect. that other
people will consider your family, when you did not consider it
yourself ? (Turning to the gaoler.)--Let the prisoner be taken
away instantly. He was accordingly taken away from the bar
back again to prison.
Neat Putts—(Before Mr. Justice. HULLOCK.)
DIXON V. TUODIPSON._

Mr. GREEN opened the pleadings, and Mr. Limns());
stated the nature of the action, which was brought by the plain.
tiff, a farmer, to recover of the defendant the amount of' 18s. for
the loss of two sheep,' which the declaration alledged he had
lost by the hounding of the plaintiff's dog. The defendant
ple4ed the general issue.
Thomas Dixon examined by Mr. ALDERSON—IIe is the son
of the plaintiff; in 1823 his father turned out 30; he did not find
all of them afterwards ; last year he turned out 26 and lost two.
Roger Sharp examined—He was the shepherd, and had the
careof the sheep. He heard the plaintiff say that he had lost
two sheep, and that he had heard the defendant say, "there
had been some comical tricks done upon the Fell with watching
one another; but that what he saw of that kind he was not to
tell;" he turned them out by the defendant's order, and set the
upon man
and th he Rinson was theest
dojo
he ever hadthem, for vanishingat sheep,said ando tb hat he could set his dog
on them with a whisp, which he would immediately under-
stand, fly in the face and nose of them in a jiffy.
-examined by Mr. Wt L cialus—There had been a ctsdif-
ference between him and the defendant, who was his late
master. He said he was to let him know how things went on.
Mr. WILLIAMS said, this was as disgraceful an action as
VMS ever brought in the county of Cumberland, and which ought
to be scouted from a Court of Justice.
His LORDSJIIP then addressed the Jury, antsaid, the only
question for their decision was, whether the plaintiff had lost
his two sheep by the hounding of the defendant's dog or by ac-
cident.

TheJury'found for the plaintiff—Damages, Is.
Mr. AGLIONBY—I hope your Lordship will certify in this
ease ?

—ft) the JUDGE—I was thinking Mr. Aglionby, that this was
one of those cases where it ought to be done—Cases of this
kind ought not to be tolerated.

LOFT v. WARREN.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the proprietor of
The Kendal Chtoniele, against the defendant, ofblacking hnnior-
tality, for a small sum of money due to him for advertisements
inserted in that Paper.. The defence set up on the part of the
defendant was, that he was not strictly liable to the plaintiff's
demand, it being the act of an unauthorised agent, and not by
his own order that the advertisements were inserted.
Verdict fbrthe plaintiff.
(Before the Hon. Sir Join{ BAYLEY, Nat.) •
TRESPASS.

PARKINSON (as tenant of Lord Lonidale) V. WYEBURaII.
This case occupied the Court nearly the whole day.
Mr. SCARLETT suited the nature of the action, which was
nominally brought by a tenant of Lord Lonsdale's, though in
fact it was virtually l,tis Lordship's action, against the claim set
up by 3lr. Wyeburgh the defendant, to the right of an island
called Elder or Alder, in his Lordship's demesne, upon which
the defendant • had entered and cut timber; and the vole ques.
Lion was, to whom did it belong ?
Mr. WlLLtans, for the defendant, contended that the spot
in question was a kind of a kingdom of Sancho_a Tom
Thumb of an island, and scarcely large enough to whip a cat
round, and moreover, 201. was as much as it was really worth
to either party.
After a number of witnesses had been examined pro and
con, his Lordship suggested the withdrawing a Juroi, in order
that the parties might be the better enabled to conic to a right
conclusion, and amicably settle all matter in difference ; but
which suggestion of his Lordship was not complied with, and
the cause (although of no public interest whatever) was not over
until nine o'clock, when the Jury retired to consider of their
verdict, and his Lordship left the Court for the Castle. After
an absence of upwards at an hour, they found for the plaintiff--
Damages 31., costs 40s.
There were four Special Jury causes, which were deferred in
consequence of the lack of Special Jurors in attendance.

BOMERSET ASIiI2ES.--WELLs, AUG. 31.
CROWN Sun.:::(llVore the CluEr?usTICE.)

Israel Rose and TV/Mani-Du/dip were indicted for assault-
ing Robert Wilkins on the King's highway, in the parish of
Barrow, in this county, on the- 9th of August, and stealing
front his person some copper coin, two pairs of stockings, a
handkerchief, and other articles, his property—Gni/I'y.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Bcfbre Mr. Baron GAIIII.OW.)
DYER v. TIIE HUNDRED OF KINGSBURY.

This tiCiion;‘;4l;r7ougillagainst the Hundred by the plain.
tiff to recover compengttion given by the Statute for the tnittry
lie had sustained by the alleged wilful firing of his barn. it
was proved that the barn was seen on fire in two distinct places
on a calm night ib November; and that a few days after u piece
of rag, saturated with gunpowder, wits found near the spot.
The Jury, under his Lordship's direction, found a verdict for
the plaintiff Damages, 180/.
!f' At the close of this cause, the Learned Judge Intimated to
' the Under Sheriff that the trial which would be first called' on
'Thursday (Porter v. Jones, Esq. for Crint. Con.) would not be
fitting for lathes to hear; but he trusted that MC seats they

usually occupied would not be filled • if they were, he should
find it necessary to order the unworthy intruders to withdraw,
in order to make room' for the fair occupants, when they Might
wish to be admitted after this trial was ended.
VITARRAN"I'Y OF A lIORSE.—FISREE L. BITAGGE.
Mr. Sergeant PELt stated the case to the Jury, and observed
that this was not only the first horse cause that had occurred. but
was one of a singular description. The plaintiff; Mr. Fisher,
was an attorney residing at Bath, and the defendant was a -farmer
and horse-dealer. Some gentlemen, on hearing the avocations
of the parties, might think them well matched ; but he thought
it would turn out that the horse-dealer was too much for the
man of law. Mr. Fisher, although a man of great skill in his
profession, was not at home in the science of horse-dealing, and
it would appear that he being in want of a quadruped of that
genus that the defendant dealt in, he applied for his assistance,
and ultimately agreed to pay 251. for a horse that was represented
as perfect. However, after a very short time the plaintiff dis•
covered to his infinite mortification that this perfect animal was
not the horse that had :men represented. Amongst other imper-
fections in this pattern of excellence, Mr. Fisher found that he
was walleyed; and not liking a wall-eyed horse, the plaintiff was
naturally anxious to send luni back, and receive in return his
251. The defendant did not object to take back the horse, but
the return of the money was somewhat inconvenient to him,
and the plaintiff was compelled to make the best terms he could,
and he ultimately entered into another agreement with the de-
fendant to the following effect :—" lib. Fisher has rentrned to
Mr. Bragge a horse called Foxbury, for which Mr. Fisher.
paid 25/., and he has agreed to take a filly called Fancy, in
exchange, and to pay .Mr. Bragge the further sum of ten
pounds. Mr. Bragge agrees to break in the filly for harness,
and to keep her till the Ist day of April next." A memo•
table day, observed the Learned Serjeant, when he is to deliver,
unblemished and in good condition, this famous filly It.
would be proved that Mr. Fisher's son 'was sent to Bragges
house, and that he paid the 101. in pursuance of this last,
agreement. The filly, however, on being brought !aline to
the plaintiff's stables at Bath, turned out to be as sorry "is°
as oxbury ; she was labouring under complicated diseases.
and so wretched was her condition, that the plaintiff foua i
d t.
necessary to place her under the care of a veterinary surgeon
before he could return 'it on the defendant's hands. The Learr.f
ed Serjeant then called Hugh }limns Fisher, son of the plaintit4
who proved the agreement.
John Allen Fisher stated that he was also a son of the plaintiff'
anti went to the defendant's about the Bth April to get a mara
delivered. He paid 10/. asking the defendant to lend him a
sovereign, lest he should not have enough to carry hint home.He did so, observing, that it should be a debt between diem.
AVitness rode the fill 30 miles in ten hours ; she appeared very
weak, and carried him badly. Witness, when he first saw d,'e
animal, observed to the defendant, that she was in a nii.serahP
condition, and her legs appeared swelled. Defendant said 1
been ploughing and had been drawing
was a bony mare and in hard condition, and added, ail,' Eatsf
turnips. She had also been rode fox hunting, and leaped le:
markably well. Witness slept at Shepton Mallett, and wen"
the next day to Bath, walking the mare all the way. the
Cross-examined by lUr. Sergeant WlLDE—Mules' ;
filly the first time on Sunday the I lth April; he WAS Posits"
he did not see her before ; witness and his brothers had been
in the habit of visiting at defendant's, but he did not know that
the
he was a horse-dealer ; lie slept at the defendant's house on
Thursday night, the Friday, and Saturday ; he never et:
pressed his admiration of the mare on either of those day's—
did not see her defect until defendant had quitted him, when
he was returning to Bath, and then the filly, in trotting an
galloping, appeared to:sink under him.
J. Thatcher deposed, that the last witness brought the mare
to his stables in Bath on Monday the 14th April ; she was thert•
very, poor in flesh, and her leg.' puffed; she had a large crack
a • waggon-load o
in her heel, which witness considered an old grievance.
' Mr. Sewell, a veterinary surgeon, saw the mare at Thatcher
stables on the 14th; she was then in an impoverished state; bet
fetlock joints were swelled and ulcerated.
Cross-examined—Has been in business six years at Batil•-
Curbs are not ossifications but diseases of the ligaments. 'rltef ,
might have been produced in a fortnight or three months.--•
Grease might not have existed on the Tuesday previous to the
day he examined her.
This was the case on the part of the plaintiff.
" ed
Mr. Serjeant I,l'l LDE, on the part of the defendant, Sae .1
that he would not then stop to inquire into the statement alas
Learned Brother as to the character which his client had
filled
in life. He could only say, lie was a most respectable farmer,
and had merited a very different treatment from that which ha
had experienced at the hands of Mr. Fisher. He should call
witnesses, who would completely contradict the young man
who took away the horse, and :thew that lie ran the horse before
Sunday, and even expressed his admiration of its beauty and
movements.

John Ilragge, brother to the defendant, stated, that yours Mr.
Fisher came to fetch away the horse on Tuesday, and on } ridaY •
ordered four new shoes to be put on her. On the morning of
Friday they rode out together, witness on the mare and yow% '
Fisher on Foxbury. Fisher expressed his admiration of h
animal; lie took away the inure on Sunday ; she was
blemish or fault ; witness knew that the mare was taxers '"
greatest care of and taught to draw according to agreement' •
The witness in his cross-examination stated that them
was at the door, and that she had not curbs. •
,Mr. Sewell, the veterinary surgeon, stated that he had PO
seen the mare, and would midertike to say she had curbs. ,eit
The Jury then went out to inspect the mare, and on lu • -
return said that some were of one opinion and some of another.
Several witnesses were called, who proved that the more ri
in excellent condition when she was delivered, and was t
good state at present.—Verdict for the plaintiff—Damg°