The Sun.
London, England, 1823-07-05 00:00:00

BOXING

FELTHA3I MARSHES, BELOW GUILFORD.

It wasipecified in the Hampton Race List, that no boxing
would be allowed during the Races, but after all was over, a
purse was made for Geo." Pittman, the Wandsworth Butcher,
and Mark Wood, a scienced youth, to have a turn, and they
pealed for combat yesterday morning at the above spot. Norris
fotigth wag tsuo
a re
vetrly ian
merry is
seconded the butcher, and 'Wood picked up his brother, who
light, but ood could never reduce his
stone W against weight.
adversary's weight to the winning pitch. lie pinked him at
ctiontmii:egadisn(,)f abi:dth.firsw.t toodapped the claret, but he was grassed,
after a manly rally.
2. A bravely contested round, and crimson streams rolled off'
was thrown heavily, after he had slit
his adversary's nose.
3. Wood fought shy, and retreated after hitting : be bed the
best of the round until dropped by a tie up on the left ribs,
which bent him.
4. Pittman made the play, and was manfully received with
both hands, which stopped him, and made him groggy. lie
threw his adversary from a close.
5. and ti Scagar's daffy kept bins in a kind of dorse these
two rounds, and .Wood had the best ; he worked himself to a
stand, and both went down.
7. Wood received a chance and chattering hit on the temple,
which floored him, anti, as he could not come to time, Pittman
won the battle in 22 minutes.
11" IluosoN Axtt Offronn.—A ruflianing fight took
place between these men for a , trifling purse. From their ap-
uxeoarianngc.erin.
agcook-ahop would have suited them better than a
They,
however, did their duty in seven bust-
ling rounds with much equality, and both were often hit to a
stand-still. In the Bth round Gifford fell off in lighting ;• he
was hit down,
and his head was In a Chancery suit. In the 7th
round he reeelved,a quietus on the mark, which finished him.
Hudson won at last tolerably easy.

LONDON DocK COMPANY.-At a half-yearly
General
Meeting of the Proprietors of this Cow
pang, held yesterday, at their house in Princes-
street, near the Bank—ISAAC SOLLY, Esq. in the
Chair—a dividend was declared upon the stock,
and 24 Gentlemen were elected as Directors
for the
Year ensuing. in answer to a question
from a Proprietor, as to the nature and' object of
the late application to Parliament for a new Bill,
the Chairman observed, that the former Bill, to
extend the works of the Company, which had
been granted for five years, having
expired on the
20th of June last, it had been thought proper
tho au application should be made to Parlia-
meat for its renewal, not for the furtherance of
Buy particular view of the Court of Directors,
but in.anticipation of any possible or contingent
necessity that might arise for the exercise of its
powers. The Court them adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, JULY 4.

THE ICING} V. DIGLET.
, •
Thhi was an inforau4ion preferred by the Crown in the na-
ture of a quo warrant() against Mr. Bigley, the ownet of the
field on which Edmonton fair is partly held, requiring him to
show by what authority the fair is holden. To this the defend-
ant pleaded a custom for such fair. The affirmatiie of the issue
being on the defendant,
Mr. SCARLETT, on his behalf, after some obiervations on
the right of the middle and lower orders of society to their cus-
tomary amusements, and against the restless spirit of interrned-
dling which would attempt to suppress them, opened a case of
usage which he thought it, would bo difficult to answer. He
called a number of respectable witnesses, who proved that the
fair had subsisted for many years,; that it was originally held
in the yard of the Bell, but was afterwards removed to Mr.
Bigley's field, which was a more commodious situation; that
it was attended by many of the neighbouring gentry and their
families, and by thousands of persons from London ; that there
were many sports, shows, and amusements provided, and also
booths for the sale of light articles, as toys, clothes, hard-ware,
ribands, and ornaments. One of the witnesses, Mr. Rumford,
excited much merriment by his comparison between the morality
of Edmonton fair and the opera and theatres, considerably to
the advantage of the former.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for the Crown, contended that
custom was no plea for a fair; the party who insisted on a
right to hold it must rely on a grant, and though it might not
be necessary to produce the grant, yet he must show such a pre-
scription as would induce the jury to presume it. In the pre-
sent case, however, not even a custom was shown for a fair,
which was an institution for the purposes of commerce, and not
merely for shows and the sale of toys.
Mr. Justice BEST, who sat in the early part of the day for
the Lord Chief Justice, interrupted the Learned Solicitor, and
told him that he thought it was not necessary for him to proceed
farther, for in his view there was no evidence whatsoever to sus-
tain the defendant's case. A fair could be evidenced only by
prescription ; it must have its proper officers ; it must be esta-
blished principally for the purposes of commerce, and not for
mere recreation and pleasure, though he was far from wishing
to deny these to the common people. He could not perceive
that the fair at Edmonton had been shown to bear any of these
characteristics, and if the jury were of the same opinion, it
wo.ald be unnecessary to hear the counsel for the Crown.
The Jury said they were quite satisfied, and immediately
found a verdict for the Crown.

LIIIEL.-MAY V. BROWN.

This action wasbr(TuTllit-iiiMr. May, late vestry-clerk of
the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, against Mr. Brown,
a dissenting preacher of that parish, for libels and slanderous
words. The defendant pleaded that he was not guilty, and
also that the subject matters of the libels and the slander were
true.
The publication and language in question arose out of the
disputes which have long divided the parish of Bethnal-green,
and in which both the parties have been active. It will be re-
membered, that some years ago two prosecutions were insti-
tuted against Mr. Merceron, a Magistrate, who had long exer-
cised great influence in the parish of Bethnal-green, one for
having clandestinely inserted in his accounts, as treasurer of the
poor-rate, the suns of 9251. Is. 3d., with intent to defraud the
parishioners, and the other for having corruptly concurred as a
Magistrate in relicensing certain public-houses in the parish,
his own property, though he well knew them to be improperly
conducted. On both these prosecutions he was convicted,
chiefly on the evidence of Mr. May, the plaintiff, and sentenced
by the Court of King's Bench to imprisonment and fine. After
this result had been obtained, considerable difference arose re-
specting the payment of the costs of the prosecutions, which
had been originally commenced by individuals, and afterwards
sanctioned by the parish : but at length a vote of the yes- '
try, obtains(' after much clamour, directed that the costs
of the prosecution respecting the poor-rate, amounting to
3131. 19s. 3d., , should be paid out of the poor-rates, and that
those of the indictment for misconduct as a ,Magistrate,
amounting to 314/. 35., should be paid out of the tines received
from' those who had refused to serve parochial offices. Dis-
putes continued, and a Committee was appointed to inquire into
the accounts, Who reported that the sum which ought to have
been paid was only 5031. 2s. 7d., the surplus having been im-
properly introducd with the concurrence of the plaintiff. An
article, purporting to contain the substance of this Report, and
expressed language strongly reflecting on Mr. May, was
Inserted in a newspaper, called The Sunday Monitor, of April
2, 1920- A violent attack on him, called " A Statement
of Facts," was also circulated by Mr. Brown, who was also
proved to have verbally used terms derogatory to the plaintiff's
character.
Mr. &AIME T T,for the plaintiff, in anticipation of the de-
fendant's attempt to justify, adduced evidence to show that the
introduction of the sum objected to was bona fide; that the
money had been expended on the prosecutions, though previ-
ous to the time when they received the sanction of the vestry ;
that the whole was fully and fairly submitted to the parishion-
ers, and the disbursements made under their approval.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for the defendant, first offered
in evidence a number of placards, what the plaintiff had assist-
ed to distribute, reflecting on the character of the defendant,
and others of his party. These, however, were held inad-
missible; but the general statement of a witness, that libels
had been published on both sides, was received. The Learned
Solicitor then proceeded with evidence in support of his justifi-
cation, into a length of detail through which it was impossible
to follow him.
The Jury retired for three quarters of an hour, and then
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1001.
The trial lasted till one o'clock in the morning.

lIIGII COURT OF ADMIRALTY, JULY 4.
THE FLORA.
In this case the ship Flora had been arrested for a debt under
a warrant from the Sheriff of Kent. Last Court day, tirake-
field, the owner of the vessel, appeared in person (alleging his
own inability to employ Counsel) to chew cause against the
arrest, which he stated to have been illegally made, because the
vessel was, at the time of the service of such warrant, lying in
a position out of the jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Kent, and
within that of the Sheriff of Middlesex.
Lord STOWELL said it would be proper that Mr. Wakefield
should either be heard by Counsel, or appear in forma pauperis,
when Counsel might be assigned him.
Dr. JENNER, for the creditor, prayed his Lordship to defer
admitting the party as a pauper until the next sitting of the
Court, in order that the creditor might have an opportunity of
opposing the admission, if it should be judged necessary.
This day, accordingly, Mr. Wakefield applied to be so ad-
mitted ; and having taken the usual oath, his application was
complied with.