The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-04 00:00:00

•TH E SUN, LONDON,RWEDNESDA -AUGUST 4; 1841.

DUKE OF BEAUFORT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave Judgment in these
two appeals from the decision of his Honour the Vice
Chancellor. In the first appeal the Dukc of Beaufort
sought to set aside a contract entered into in June, 1839,
and also to restrain the Commissioners from making any
award founded on the or in any way affecting a piece of
Woodland called Dunley Gorse. In the second appeal, Mr.
Neeld sought to restrain the Duke of Beaufort from prose-
cuting an action of trespass and ejectment, which he had
brought, and by which he asserted a title to the land in ques-
tion. The proposition for exchanging Dunley Gorse for
other lands with Mr. Neeld, was the subject of communica -
tion as early as December 1838, and in January 1839, Mr.
Taylor, the Commissioner, was informed that the Duke
of Beaufort would give up Dunlay Gorse for other lands,
and ultimately:a:paper was sent to London for the Duke's
signature, by his agent, Mr. Wedge, by which the Duke
consented to the exchange with the approbation of the
Commissioner. The signature of the Duke was obtained
by Messrs. Watkins and Hooper on the Ist of June, and
the paper was sent to the Commissioner. Mr. Neeld
having signed a similar consent, the Commissioner
alloted Dunley Gorse to Mr. Neeld in exchange for the
lands of his, which were allotted to the Duke.
Mr. Neeld took possession of the lands allotted
to him ; and according to the statement of Mr. Wedge,
he was privy to the exchanges and the lands allotted to
the Duke, and they were
.taken possession of by his
Grace's tenants. Mr. Wedge also stated that Mr. Neeld
had been ever since in possession, and that he had made
many alterations in• the land, and among others he bad
planted it with the concurrence of Mr. Wedge, who had
given him leave to cut the underwood on Dunley Gorse
before it had been valued, to facilitate the carrying on of
his proposed improvements. In this state matters con-
tinued till January, 1840, when notice was given that
the Duke disputed the right of Mr. Neeld to the land
allotted to him, notwithstanding it was clear that
everything was settled with the entire concurrence
of Mr. Wedge, the Duke's agent. On the part
of the Duke, it was asserted that he prohibited
Mr. Wedge from consenting to give up Bunley
Gorse, for any other land except woodland. Mr.
Wedge stated that he communicated this to Mr. Taylor,
die ContinissiOner, but that gentleman positively denied
having received any such communication. There was no
doubt that the Duke supposed he had sufficiently ex-
pressed his intention to Mr. Wedge, but it was impossi-
ble to explain that gentleman's conduct by the supposi-
tion that he so understood the Duke's instructions, be-
cause if he did so understand them he hid acted towards
his employer in direct violation of them, and to those
with whom he was dealing his conduct was most unjusti-
fiable, if he supposed what be was consenting to on the
part of the Duke, might afterwards be set aside on
the ground of his want of authority. If such things
were to be allowed—if parties after the interest of others
had been effected by their acts were allowed to
repudiate them, there would be no security
for the transactions of -mankind, and the question then
would be, whether th'e.party who reposed such unde-
served confidence in his agent, or the innocent party
with whom the agent lad been acting under the autho-
rity so obtained, should suffer from the misconduct of
the agent. One who puts into the hands of another the
means of committing a fraud, though without any
evil intention himself, would in general find
himself bound by, the - act done. Upon the
bill, filed by the Duke, the question was whether,
under the circumstances, he had shown .any equity
for the interference of the Court against parties
who had acquired, or might acquire, rights under the
Act of the Commissioners, so as to justify the Courts in
restraining future proceedings under that Act, so far as
it related to the exchange of old enclosures, and in Mr.
Neeld's suit the question was, whether the Duke ought
to be permitted by the proceedings at law to undo
what had taken place under the authority of his
own written instructions, and with the con-
sent and concurrence of his agent. His Lord-
ship was clearly of opinion the Duke had not
shown any case for the interposition of the Court,
and that he had no equity to interfere with the posses-
sion which had been given in exchange for other land.
On these grounds, therefore, his Lordship was of opinion
that the order of the Vice-Chancellor, restraining the
commissioners from proceeding, and the order also dis-
solving the common• injunction obtained by Mr. Neeld
in his suit, must be discharged, with costs.

DUNCAN V. Si`CALMONT-JUDGMENT.

The Liam) CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, ordering the injunction to issue upon security being
given before the Master.

SHERIFF'S COURT, Aug. 3.]
MARCH V. BIRCH.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 11/.
for money lent, to which the defendant pleaded not in-
debted.

Mr. Lloyd appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Pass-
more for the defendant.

The plaintiff is a fancy article dealer, residing in
Chancery-lane, and the defendant is a salesman, carrying
on business in Newgate•market. Having to execute an
order for some hams, the defendant applied to the
plaintiff to lend him 15/., which he did, but took
no acknowledgment. Some time afterwards the de-
fendant paid the plaintiff 4/. on account, and the present
action was brought to recover the balance. Two letters
were put in by the plaintiff from the defendant, referring
to transactions of money between the parties, but no
amount was stated. A witness was called on the part of
the plaintiff; who stated that he was requested to call
on the defendant for 11/., and the defendant then said
that he only owed the. plaintiff 1/., as he had sent him
101. since the former payment of 41., the defendant adding
that the plaintiff could not recover it even if he did owe
tlim 11/., as there was no written acknowledgment.
The Learned UNDER SHERIFF having summed up the
evidence the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 11/
Mr. Pessmortg said he should move for a new trial on
the ground of verdict against evidence.

MEEK V. DUNK,--ASHEWOOD V. FITZGERALD,-DOBELL V.

STEWART.

These were severally undefended actions of debt, in
each of which verdicts passed for the plaintiff.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD ClRCUlT—Hereford, July 31.
The Special Jury case " Dunn v. Wariters," which
was fixed for this morning, has been referred, and Mr.
Justice Coleridge is now trying a road indictment, which
is the last case on the civil side. The criminal business
was finished yesterday. Their Lordships will proceed to
Monmouth when the road indictment has been tried, and
will open the Commission there.

WESTERN ClRCUlT—Chester, July 30.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice EasKINE.)
James Hampton and Thomas Hampton, two remarka-
bly strong, fine-looking young men, twins, of the age
of 28 years, were indicted for feloniously breaking into
the counting-house of Messrs. Skerratt and Romer, and
stealing therefrom a quantity of bank notes and money,
amounting to upwards of 1,1001. There were counts in
the indictment also charging the prisoners with a larceny.
The Attorney-General of the Palatine (Mr. Hill) and
Dr. Brown appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Yardley
for the prisoners.
The facts of the case were briefly these :—The prose-
cutors, Messrs. Skerratt and Romer, are solicitors, re-
siding at Sandbach, in this county. On the 22d of
January last, the prosecutors placed a large sum of
money in an iron safe in theif counting-house, contrary
to their usual custom. During the night the place was
broken open and robbed. An entry had been effected
through one of the windows,. the iron safe forced, and
between 50 and 60 51. notes of the Imperial Bank of
Manchester, 3,100/. Bank of England notes, 750/. notes
of the same bank, 6 bank post bills for 50/. each, and a
number of other notes, the amount of which was not stated.
From the foot-marks in the snow about the place of rob-
bery, it appeared that only two persons had been engaged
in the robbery. The prisoners were apprehended a few days
afterwards, and taken to a lock-up in Middlewhich, from
which they contrived 'during the night to escape, and
were not again taken until the 20th of April, in Sheffield.
On the prisoners some sovereigns and silver were found,
but not notes. In James Hampton's house was found a
chisel, which, on being compared with the marks on the
counting-house dooi., exactly corresponded. There was
also a pair of shoes claimed by him which corresponded
with the footmarks near the counting-house. It was also
proved that on the day after the robbery the prisoners
paid away two Imperial Banknotes fora shawl and some
cotton cord, purchased by a Mrs. Edwards, at a place
called Innstile, nine miles from Sandbach. At a public
house about three miles from Innstile, the priso-
ners showed other Imperial notes and asked for
change, but did not succeed in obtaining change.
One of the notes paid to Mrs. Edwards, endorsed by
Mr. John Pedley, was produced and identified. The
examination of the prisoners before the Magistrates
were proved. James Hampton said his brother knew
nothing about the robbery ; that he gave the notes to
him, and it was time enough to say where the money
was. The other prisoner admitted having purchased
the cord from Mrs. Edwards, but said his brother gave
him the note which he paid there. The Imperial Bank,
as is well known, has suspended p?ymwi long ago, and
those notes had been in the possession athe prosecutors
a considerable time.
_ _ _

Mr. Yardley. took several objections to the indictment,
which were overruled by the ,Learned Judge, and, after
a lengthened investigation,
The prisoners were found Guilty.
They were again indicted for a common larceny, for
having in their possession property which had been
stolen from the house of Mr. Ralph Young, who resides
in Staffordshire.

On this indictment they were also found Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE then sentenced them to seven
years' transportation each for each offence.
SATURDAY, JULY 31.
The Lord Chief Baron this morning left the city, and
consequently only one Court was open to-day.

THE ' HAMPTONS.
The two Haniptons, tried yesterday and sentenced to
14 years' transportation, were this morning placed at the
bar, and the Learned Judge Informed them that he
should recall the sentence he had passed on them for the
robbery of Messrs. Skerratt and Romer's counting-house,
in consequence
of his doubt as to the applicability of
the evidence to the first count of the indictment, in
which the note produced and identified was called a bank-
note.

This was one of the points raised yesterday by Mr.
Yardley.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then, at the instance of
his Lordship, entered a noli prosequi to that count, and
a verdict of Guilty on the larceny counts was recorded.

The,,,LeaMed JUDGE then sentenced them to seven
years'' transportation for each offence.
Considerable interest was excited by the trial fixed
for this morning of Thomas Brooks for the murder of
Thomas Henshall, in consequence of the horrible manner
in which the deed was perpetrated, and the fact that the
widow of Henshall, who has been gradually sinking
since:the occurrence, having within the last few days
fallen a victim to a broken heart, leaving a family of
seven small children unprovided for. The Court was
therefore crowded to excess.

The prisoner, who is a man of small property, was
placed at the bar, and in a firm voice pleaded " Not
Guilty" to the indictment. He is a rather good-looking
man, thirty years of age; of sharp featuras, a keen pene-
trating eye, and certainly nothing ferocious in his ap-
pearance. His behaviour at the bar during the whole of
the day was that of an anxious spectator, if we except a
short period when the Judge was remarking on those
circumstances of the case which bore most strongly
against him, and during the time the Jury were con-
sidering their verdict, when there was a manifest rest-
lessness of mind which caused the perspiration to bedew
his face considerably.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Trafford, and Mr. Town-
send appeared for the prosecution, and Messrs. Jervis and
Welsby for the defence.
The prisoner was indicted by the name of Thomas
Brooks, for the wilful murder of Thomas Henshall, on
the 10th of September last, at Huxley.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having stated the case to
the Jury, evidence was adduced to substantiate the
charge, from which it appeared that the deceased was in
the employment of Mr. Garstang, who had taken the
shooting over the estates of Mr. Wilbraham, of Rode-
hall, as a watcher of game. On the 10th of September,
1840, he had been attending on Mr. Garstang and a
friend, who were engaged shooting in the adjoining
parish, Stapleford. About half-past seven o'clock the
deceased left Mr. Garstang and his friend at Tarvin,
perfectly sober, having previously been paid 2/. Bs. by
that gentleman. AbOut half-past eight o'clock, he was
seen on his way home, and about two miles from his re-
sidence. He was not again seen alive • but next morn-
ing, about seven o'clock, he was found in a gap in a
hedge, separating two fields, about 300 yards from his
own house. He was lying on his left side quite dead and
cold, and his right hand trousers' pocket, in which it was
supposed the money he had received from Mr. Garstang
had been deposited, was turned inside out, and only a
few pence were found on him. The next piece of evi-
dence offered on behalf of the prosecution was the depo-
sition of Sarah Henshall, the widow of the deceased. It
was proved by Mr. Domville, clerk to the Magistrates,
that he took this deposition, but in cross-examination he
admitted having copied nearly the whole of it from a pa-
per furnished to him as a deposition taken before the Co-
roner, but it was not authenticated as such. After being
asked about a dog and the report of a gun, respecting
which she made a statement, she was asked if the con-
tents of the paper were true,. and swore to it in the pre-
sence of a Magistrate and the prisoner, who declined ask-
ing her any question.
This deposition, it was argued by the Counsel for the
prisoner, could not be evidence against him, inasmuch as
it was nothing more than an affidavit ; that it was not
her own voluntary statement at all, but the portion of it
to which her attention had been directed might be con-
sidered a leading question of the most vicious description,
and therefore it would be extremely dangerous to admit
such evidence.

The Learned JUDGE, after hearing the counsel for the
prosecution on the subject, decided that the deposition
could not be received as evidence, inasmuch as it was not
the result of any examination at all, but merely a paper
read over to her, and adopted by her on oath.
Mr. Domville then proceeded to state, in cross-exami-
nation by Mr. JERVIS, that the prisoner was taken into
custody on the 11th of September, but discharged after
the inquest, on the 12th ; that he then returned home,
and continued to follow his usual avocation until Novem-
ber, when he was again apprehended, In the meantime
a reward of 2001. had been offered for the discovery of
the murderer, and the assistance of Inspector Holman
and Mr. Hill, superintendent of the Chester police, had
been obtained. The witness also stated that the Magis-
trates refused admission to the legal adviser of the pri-
soner to the examination, until an order was sent down
from the Home-office en this subject. _

Mr. B. Earl, a surgeon, residing at Tarvin, deposed to
making a post mortem examination of the body. He
found on the left side a gun-shot wound, about three
inches in•circumferencc, and from five to six inches deep.
The witness extracted a quantity of shot from the peri-
cardium, the heart having been completely perforated by
the charge, part of which he then produced, and another
portion he gave to Mr. Hill.
Ann Dutton proved, that on the 10th of September
she dined and took tea at the house of the prisoner, in
company with his mother. In the evening the latter
person, herself, and the prisoner left his house together.
The prisoner had a gun in his hand. When he had pro-
ceeded a short distance on the road he left them.

Mary
.Heaton, who resides at Huxley, stated, that on
the evening of the murder, as she was milking, she ob-
served a person cross the field at a distance, dressed in
light clothes. The witness said she thought it was the
prisoner, but would not swear it was.
Mr. Hill deposed to showing the short in his possession
to Mr. Low, a gunsmith. The witness then produced them.
John Ellson, shoemaker, stated that on the night of
the murder he was at a place called Cookson's-bridge,
about nine o'clock, when he heard the report of a gun
from towards where the body was found.
W. Stewardson took the prisoner into custody on the
evening of the 11th of September, at his own house. On
going there he found the prisoner in bed. He got up,
and witness told him his errand, on which the prisoner
said, "Is he dead ?" Witness said, " Yes ; don't you
know ?" to which the prisoner replied that ho had never
heard of it before. Witness was accompanied by Ed-
ward Jones, another constable. The house was searched
and two guns found loaded, one of which was a double-
barrelled gun and the other single. The latter, the pri-
soner said, belonged to Samuel Inshingham. The wit-
ness said he drew the charges, and produced the shot.
Two witnesses, and the examination of the prisoner
before the Magistrates, was the next evidence adduced
to show that the prisoner had been told of the murder
previous to the night of his apprehension, and that he
had made contradictory statements respecting the mur-
der. Mr. W. Low, gunsmith, examined the shot found
in the body, and also in the guns. They were of six
different sizes, Nos. 3,4, 5,6, 7,8, and the relative pro-
portions were similar, but the shot found in the body
of the deceased, and that in the gun said to belong to
Inshingham more nearly corresponded. Evidence was
next adduced to prove observations made by the prisoner
previous to the murder, to the effect that Ilenshall was a
spiteful man, and it would not surprise him if he were
shot ; and also that he had said, after the murder, that as
he (the deceased) was shot, he (the prisoner) would as
lief he was shot as not.
Mr: JEavis addressed the jury in behalf of the pri-
soner fug' upwards of two hours, contending that the cir-
cumstance' were not of that clear and explicit nature
which would warrant them in convicting the prisoner.
The Learned JUDGE very minutyly summed up the
evidence, and
The Jury, after a consultation of 20 minutes, pro-
nounced a verdict of Not Guilty.
The trial lasted from nine in the morning until a
quarter to 8 in the evening.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT—Derby, July 30.

(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a pecini Jury.)
WOOD V. MOREWOOD.

This cause was commenced at nine o'clock yesterday
morning, and was not concluded until after eight
o'clock
this evening. The issues were upon the defendant,
whose case lasted the whole of yesterday,, and the plain-
tiff's case was opened at the sitting of the Court at nine
o'clock this morning.
Sir William Follett, specially retained, assisted by Mr.
Clarke, Mr. Whitehurst, and Mr. Daniel, conducted the
defendant's case ; Mr. Hill, Queen's counsel, Mr. Hild-
yard and Mr. Waddington were counsel for the plaintiff.
This was an action on the case to recover compensa-
tion in damages for an injury alleged to have been com-
mitted by the defendant in having wrongfully dug and
carried away, during the last eight or nine years, a large
quantity of coal from under a close in the occupation of
a person named Brown, situate at Alfreton, in this
county, of which the plaintiff claimed the reversionary
interest as the owner in fee. The declaration also com-
prised a count in trover for the recovery of the value of
the coal taken and converted by the defendant to his use.
The plaintiff sought to recover a sum exceeding 20,0001.

- -
Sir- W. FOLLETT, , for the defendant, contended that
down to the time of the notice of October, 1837, the
working of the mine was permissive, and that the amount
of the fair valuation at that time per acre for the privi-
lege of working the shaft under this close (1981.) should
be the measure of damages, and not the sum of 2591. per
acre, which had been proved to 'have been the amount
of produce to the defendant, the difference between
which latter sum and the sum of 1981. per acre consisted
in the fair profit, and return of outlay, upon the de-
fendant's operations.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Dam-
ages 2,362/. 10s., i. e., estimated at the rate of 2101. per
acre.