The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 24.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord DENMAN.)
HILTON V. LORD GRA.NVILLE.
. _

In this case, which was concluded on Wednesday, the
jury found that the custom in the Duchy of Lancaster,
from time immemorial, was not to remunerate the
owners of houses for injury caused to them by the work-
ing; of mines; but they found further, that the plaintiff
had a perfect right to the foundation of his houses, and,
as injury had been caused to them by the mode in which
the defendant had worked his mine, they gave a ver-
dict for the plaintiff on the general issue for 301., that
being the amount of the damage done, the general issue
being that the plaintiff's rights had been invaded. Bills
of exceptions were tendered on both sides. The effect
of the verdict will be argued next term, and will, in all
probability, come before a court of error.
PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY—THE QUEEN V. STRAFORD.
This was a prosecution at the instance of Mrs. New-
ton, the wife of Mr. Newton, the barrister, against the
, defendant, a solicitor, for wilful and corrupt perjury in
' an affidavit made by him in certain law proceedings in
the Court of Chancery between Mr. Newton and Lady
Rickets, the mother of his wife, and the executors of the
late Sir Robert Rickets. In the course of these proceed-
ings an order was made by the Master of the Rolls that
all matters not clearly relating to the matter at issue
should be expunged, or " sealed up." The order was
carried out by the defendant, and several items were
obliterated by having white paper pasted over them. He
filed an affidavit, setting forth that he bad "covered up"
all irrelevant passages; but it appeared that many had
been expunged which materially related to the case, and
hence the present proceeding against him for the com-
mission of wilful and corrupt perjury.
The several documents in the case having been
handed in,
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS called Mrs. Newton, the
prosecutrix, who stated that she was married to Mr.
Augustus Newton, the barrister, in 1828. At that time
the defendant was her father's legal adviser. She was
entitled to a sum of 2,000/. under her aunt's will, and

the defendant, soon after her marriage, visited her, and
proposed that her husband should settle the amount on
her. He said he was commissioned to do so by her
father, but the proposition was not agreed to. The de-
fendant said afterwards, when he was examined in the
Court of Common Pleas, that the purport of his visit
was to state that her father intended to increase her in-
come. She had received nothing since her father's
death. She had three children. The defendant sent
her husband a copy of her father's will and a copy of
the settlement of 1340, but he never received from him
any account of the settlement made in 1832.
Cross-examined by Sir F. ThEsIGER—Her marriage
was not altogether agreeable to her parents. Did not
visit them after her marriage. 2,0001. was paid, but it
all went in a short time. On an inquiry before the
magistrate respecting a charge against her mother and
others of forging her father's will, she was called to
speak to her mother's handwriting. After the dismissal
of the case by the magistrates of Cheltenham, she went
before the grand jury on a charge preferred against her
mother and her brother, Sir Cornwallis, of forging de-
clarations in her father's name, for the purpose of re-
ceiving his half-pay. Received 251. after her father's
death. Up to her lather's death she received about 1201.
a year.
Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant WlLKlNS—Believed
her father died worth 100,0001.

Sir F. TUESIGER said his personal property was sworn
under 60,0001.
_ _

Mr. Sergeant WiutrNs—And you have received but
25/.? Witness—Yes.

Mr. Newton was then examined by Sir FREDERIcX
THESIGER—He said no settlement was executed at his
marriage ; 2,4001. was paid to their joint draft about a
year after his marriage, which was expended within two
years. lie was a law student at the time of his mar-
riaCe, to which Sir Robert gave his assent the night
beforei.a it took place ; but both Sir Robert Rickets and
benefit f
his debts
'waslyeelpecttats objected to it up to a certain time. He
to the bar in Trinity term lid 37 ; took the
assets were
o the Insolvent Act in 1840. The amount of
W'maernsaoltnething under 12,000 L His available
nothing,
lnindeed—not absolutely nothing, but
very nearly
In-
solvent Act again 117:1 He took the benefit of the
wB4er3, after the death of Sir Robert
Rickets. His debts were then 1,2001. ; his assets he
preferred a charge against
fsncied nothing at all.
a person named Wright, loth!'
Rickets
was
arrested, The
and he
A warrant was also issued against the of
the defendant.
wasbelieved
broughtLs
Lady
to Cheltenham to an The defendant
ewer the charge.
He conducted the case himself, but he never insinuated
that his father-in-law had been poisoned. The case was
dismissed. Did make use of the expression ~ men who

make their wills have but a little time to live—his will
was signed within a week of his death." He with his
wife also appeared before the grand jury of which Mr.
. nG
colonell
s.r asnetdl
.e ) Berkeley
. Rickets,obtai Obtained
eda
nwdaa s
thewta he foreman,
rrantcharge
o against theforgery
uncle
a
valet
of
waso of Sir
. -,1, named Clarke, on the charge of encouraging a
Rot:,,,_ -Irnown to slay Sir Robert, but the charge was
person uu- -',e his mother-in-law into custody, in St.
dismissed. Gb.. of a policeman, on the charge of
-
Paul's Churchyard, , 'opeared against her the next
forging declarations, and milled as a witness to her
..
morning, when his wife was e... dismissed.
Subse-
father's handwriting ; but it was . -..1 against his
quently he preferred a similar charg- 'he rand
mother-in-law and Sir Cornwallis before L.-
g
,
jury, but the bill was ignored. He was still at the bar,
and was a member of the Middle Temple. Had L'een
refused permission to dine in the hall for twelve months.
Examined by Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—Had sold the
reversionary interest of property to the defendant. The
probate of the will had been recalled by the Will Court.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Lord DENMAN said the pasting over of the items was
liable to great suspicion.
Sir FREDERICK THESICER said it was usual to adopt
such a course in the Courts of Chancery. He then pro-
ceeded to address the jury on behalf of the defendant,
and contended that the charge could not be maintained ;
that the defendant had simply acted as the legal adviser
of the family, and had been acquitted of blame in this
matter by the arbitrator appointed to investigate the
matter by the Court of Chancery. He commented at
considerable length upon the unimpeachable character
of the defendant, and upon the conduct of Mr. Newton,
who bore, he said, a disreputable and notoriously bad
character, and whose acts, he said, as shown in his
evidence, were sufficient to condemn him.
Several witnesses were called, who stated that the de-
fendant bore an irreproachable character.
The jury Acquitted the defendant.

SHERIFFS' COURT, June 24.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BCRcHELL.)
SKITTER V. THE EARL OF MORNINGTON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
the sum of 171. 10s. for wages, as coachman to the
defendant.

The defendant had put a plea of not indebted on the
record, but no one appeared on his behalf.
Mr. Newman, a job-master, of Regent-street, proved
that he recommended plaintiff to Mr. Robins, who was
his Lordship's man of business, and 355. a week was
mentioned as wages, and that was reasonable, as the duty
was very arduous during the session of Parliament.
Witness's father supplied the carriage and horses.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said the question was whether
Mr. Robins had authority to make the bargain.
The plaintiff's attorney said the defendant used the
carriage driven by plaintiff._

The UNDER-SHERIFF said it was a question for the
jury.
The jury found for the plaintiff.

BROWNE V. BENNE&
The plaintiff in this action is a coal merchant at Pim-
lico, and defendant is an attorney. The action was
brought to recover the sum of 61.25. for coals.
Defendant pleaded that he was only indebted to the
amount of 145., which he paid into court.
It appeared that a person named Monk had recom-
mended defendant's father to do some law proceedings,
but no personal interview took place ; but the latter
afterwards ordered coals, and said that he was doing
some law business. After these the business was trans-
ferred to the son, without the knowledge of plaintiff,
and the son, the present defendant, was paid the whole
of the costs.

The defendant admitted having ordered 14s. worth of
coals for his offices, but repudiated the order for the
others, which had been supplied at his father's house.
The UNDER-SHERIFF thought that if the plaintiff had
executed the order, considering it was on the credit of
his attorney in the cause, he was entitled to a verdict.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.

Great inconvenience and delay arose in this court in
consequence of nose of the parties in the different cases
being ready to go on, and in this case it was commenced
without witnesses being present; it was, therefore, made
to last nearly four hours.