The Sun.
London, England, 1824-06-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, SATURDAY, drrin3
(Sitting: before the Loun CHIEF 'JUSTICE.)
THE LING, ON THE PROSECUTION OP DUMBELL AOAIXSI

FITCIIEI"r.

This was an indictment for alleged perjury, on an affidaril
used on a motion to. this Court for a rule to restrain a receio
for 7201., given by the defendant's late partner, Mr. Thomas
Claughton ; and a judgment entered up on a warrant of attor•
ney taken in his name and by his direction, being set up in has
of two actions brought by the defendant and his partners againal
a miller, near Warrington, of the name of Dumbell, for th°
recovery of two sums of 6991. and 20/.
Mr. BROUGHAM opened the pleading, and Mr. Gunxia
stated the case for the prosecution.
%Ir. Duncan, Attorney for the prosecution, produced all
office copy of the rule of Court, and Mr. Scarlett, on his ant"'
examination, elicited from him that Mr. Dunibell and Ilfr:
Claugliton were the witnesses examined when this indietmea.
was preferred.
Mr. 14.7illiam Dodd, the first witness adduced to prove the
charge, negatived it altogether, and Mr. GURNEY admitted
he could not carry it further.
Mr. Dumbell and Mr. Claughton were both present in Court-
The CHIEF JUSTICE directed the Jury to acquit the de"
fendant.
The Court was crowded with many Gentlemen of
_high re"
spectability, among whom we observed John Blackburne, Es*
M.P., Edward ode Williraham, Esq. M.P., Robert NW'
dane Bradshaw, Esq. M.P., Thomas Legh, Esq. M.P., James
Alexander Hodson, Esq. IMP., John Ireland Blackburna,
Esq., Mr. Sergeant Cross, John Wyatt, Esq., William Row'
coe, Esq. of Liverpool, William Tooke, Esq., Thomas Low'
ten, Esq., the Rev. Daniel Mathias, William Lowe, Esq.,
William Cross, Esq., Prothonotary of Lancashire, Joseph
Leigh, Esq. &c. It was understood that they attended to have
borne testimony to the character of the defendant, bad thief
been called upon.

[PROCEEDINGS OF THIS DAY.]
SLANDER.—STOREY 97. HINCIIIN.
Mr. GURNEY stated this was an action brought by the /bird' '
tiff, a maltster, of Portsmouth, against the defendant. an
Attorney of that town, for attributing the crime of fcrgtif t°
him, plaintiff; and otherwise defaming his character. 'Thu
Learned Counsel called one witn.ss to substantiate the charge,:
Mr.. Markham, a Messenger of Bankruptcy, who state"
that the defendant asked him, in the course of conversation
in January last, if he knew what the plaintiff had done
Witness said, " No ;" to which defendant replied, then
I tell you he has committed forgery, and 1 intend to have
him tried for it. Words of this kind and to the same intent
witness had heard the defendant say before ; never heard hio
say any thing about bills drawn by the plaintiff.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the defence, called witnesses to prove"
that the expressions made use of by the defendant related to
some transactions in a commission of bankruptcy, in which the
parties were concerned.

Mr. GURNEY was about to cross-examine the witness, whfoi
at the instigation of the Lord Chief Justice, the case was with-
drawn.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 12.
THE DUKE Or NORTHUMBERLAND V. CLOVES.
This was an action brought by the Duke of Northumberland
against the defendant, for a nuisance, in erecting a steam engine
close to Northumberland House. A wooden plan of North-
umberland House and gardens was produced in Court.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated, that the Noble Duke. in
coming. into Court claimed no more than other subjects o'
his Majesty, but lie had an equal right to the protection of die
laws. The defendant was a respectable printer, residing
contiguous to Northumberland Rouse, and had last SeptemberSeptembererected a steam-engine, by which Northumberland nouss.
was much annoyed. They complained of smoke, want 0'
water, and a great noise, resembling a threshing-machine'
carts, or remote thunder; and, when the wind was in the north-
east, a prodigious quantity of black snow falling so thick on the
pavement, that a person could write his name on it. To pre:.
vent this smoke the defendant had latterly used coke instead °'
coal, but finding the coke not to answer as well as coal, be
only recurred to it on days that visits were expec cl, to
spect the premises, after which he reverted to the tree of-cow.'
—The Duke had expended about 100,0001. in repairing en"
beautifying Northumberland-house, and had employed Withal
artisans wholly for that purpose. After expending so much,
it was surely hard that the Noble proprietor should be driven
from it. The servants could not open the windows on account
of the smoke, particularly the sky-light which lighted the grrieni
.;
staircase, and which was near the steam-engine. The eti°'"
of opening windows would be that the smoke would injure the
paintings. The walls were shaken by the operation of die
engine—an offensive smell was felt—and great injury was done
to the herbage and flowers. After the erection of the engine
a scarcity of water was felt at Northumberland House, on
account of the supply requisite for the steam. It was tT"
the defendant had dug a well for the engine, but its cif",,
was to draw the water from the Duke's well. Northumberland
House was originally the property of the Earl of Northampton'
but had been in possession of the Northumberland family for
two centuries. The Noble Duke, in bringing this action, aid
not ask to recover damages, but only to ascertain how this
nuisance, which affected his property, could be abated.
Evidence being called on the part of the plaintiff, a proposi-
tion was made to refer the cause, which was objected to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proceeded to comment Icon
the evidence, and said he should call witnesses to disprove it.
At the suggestion of the Court, a reference was again pro-
posed, and finally it was agreed to take a verdict for the plain'
tiff—Damages 1,0001., subject to the reference of Alr. Selwyn.