The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-26 00:00:00

- -ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
AARTHERN. CIRCUIL—York, July 22.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON and
a Special Jury.)
CLAY V. EASTWOOD.

This was an action brought to recover damages for en
alleged malicious prosecution.
Mr. Martin, Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, and Mr. Pashley
appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Knowles and Mr. H.
Hill for the defendant.
Mr. MiatTni, in stating the case to the jury, said that
the plaintiff, Mr. John Clay, was an attorney, of Hud-
dersfield, and the defendant a manufacturer at Meltham.
The defendant had thought proper, at the last spring
assizes at York, to prefer a bill of indictment against Mr.
Clay, on account of some evidence given by the latter on
a former trial, in an action by one Moorehouse against
the present defendant. Moorehouse's action arose out of
a prosecution in 1845, by the present defendant against
him (Moorehoase) and several other persons, for tres-
passing on the defendant's land, and Moorehouse's action
was tried before Mr. Justice Patteson, when the plaintiff
had a verdict for 40s. Mr. Clay having appeared as the
attorney for Moorehouse and the other men before the
justices upon .Mr.Eastwood'sprosecutang them, appeared
afterwards as Moorehouse's witness in the action, and
then spoke to the fact of one of the charges before the
magistrates against Moorehouse and the others being dis-
missed upon the merits." This was a material ques-
tion before the jary in "
Moorehouse v.
Eastwood." It
was in consequence of that evidence given by the pre-
seet plaintiff that Mr. Eastwood hadindicted the plain-
tiff, who was tried upon that charge of perjury betore
Mr. Baron Alderson, and acquitted. Mr. Martin said,
that he should prove that the charge about which the
present plaintiff had sworn, had, in tact, been dismissed
on the merits, and that the now defendant had repeatedly
said that he did not want, by his indictment for perjury,
to puneh Mr. Clay; but to prevent the other trespassers
along with Mr. Moorehouse from bringing other actions
against him, Mr. Eastwood. The Learned Counsel
offered to the other side, that if the defendant was
willing to withdraw the imputation, and pay the plaintiff
his expenses, he (the plaintiff) was willing to proceed
no further.

Mr. KNOWLES at first could not agree to accept such
an offer, and the cause was for some time proceeded
with. But, ultimately, Mr. Knowles said, his Lordship
would not think it at all inconsistent with his (Mr.
Knowles's) duty to his client, if he admitted that there
must have been some misconception in the mind of the
defendant as to Mr. Clay's guilt. From the evidence
now received that, no doubt, had been the case. He
(Mr. Knowles) would, therefore, accede to the offer, and
agree to withdraw a juror, Mr. Bell, the associate, to
ascertain what expenses the plaintiff had incurred with
respect to the present cause of action.
July 23.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice IVIGHTMAN.)
THZ MIRFIELD MURDERS POSTPONEMENT OF THE
OTHER CASES.

Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN this morning said that he
had carefully considered the question which had been
submitted to him with respect to the two other indict-
ments pending against Patrick Reid. It was proposed,
in the exercise of ther discretion, by the counsel for the
Crown to proceed with the other indictments against
the prisoner. They had a right, by law, to try the
prisoner again, as the charges were distinct. And the
question was, whether the further trials ought to be had
at these or at the subsequent assizes—whether at these
assizes, at which a jury had given a verdict, and upon
the same evidence. It was said that evidence might be
produced if the cases were postponed. It appeared to
his Lordship that, as regarded the interest both of the
prisoner and the public, the further proceedings should
not take place at these same assizes. But nothing, in
such a case, should be done hastily ; and therefore his
Lordship would direct that these two indictments should
stand over until the next general gaol delivery.
Hannah Gaunt and John Gaunt, mother and son, the
former of whom was stated to be the wife of a trades-
man, were charged with having sent a threatening
letter to Mr. Todd, charging him with the forgery or
stock in the Bank of England, and with having thereby
endeavoured to obtain money from him.
Mr. Baines, Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, and Mr. Bliss, ap-
peared fur the prosecution ; and Mr. Overend and Mr.
Aspitiall fur the prisoners.
Mr. Blurs went at length into a statement of the
facts of the case, from which it appeared that the pro-
secutor is a magistrate living in the East Riding, and had
been harassed by letters from the female prisoner, espe
cially respecting some money which the prosecutor's
sister had in the Three per Ceuts. The letter was signed
by both the prisoners, which was read by the Learned
Counsel, who undertook to disprove every allegation
which was mode in that letter. He-confessed there was
in his mind some difficulty in fixing the charge upon the
son, as the case was not so strong against him as against
the mother.

Mr. OVEREND having advised the female prisoner to
plead guilty, he proceeded to state to his Lordship some
circumstances, which showed that the prisoner had
written the letter under a mistaken impression that the
money in the Three per Cents. belonged to her, having,
as she thought, been left by a brother who died some
years ago, in the East Indies.
His LORDSHIP sentenced the prisoner to be confined for
a fortnight only, which will terminate this day, ai all
sentences commence from the date of the commission of
assize. The son was Acquitted.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before the LORD CHIEN BARON and a

Special Jury.) -
ANDERSON V. BOYNTON.
In this case, wilich was adjourned from yesterday,
Robert Henry Anderson was the plaintiff, and John
Boynton defendant.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Row were for the plaintiff, ankl
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling for the defendant.
The action was on promises, upon the bill of an at-
torney, for work and labour done, money lent, and on an
account stated. The detendant pleaded—first, that he
was never indebted; secondly, that except as to 1,7811
he denied his liability; thirdly, that as to 41. 13.. 20. tie
bad paid the bill and had a set-off; and fourthly, he
denied the deli►ery of the bill.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff is an at-
torney at 'rusk, where he has carried on business fur a
great number of years. The defendant is a gentleman
who resides in the neighbourhood of York, and was a
shareholder in the Yorkshire Agricultural and Com-
mercial Banking Company. The action was brought to
recover 424/. 16s. 7d., the amount of costs which Mr.
Anderson alleged to be due to him from the de-
fendant. The bank in question failed in 1343, at
which time a large amount of the paid up capita;
had been spent. The consequence was that Mr.
Wood, the public officer of the bank, bad an action
brought against him for 50,0001., and he having
allowed judgment to go by default, he was callea
upon to show cause why execution should not issue
against him. Several of the shareholders, including the
present defendant, were then proceeded against, and the
defendant, thinking that he was not liable, employed Mr.
Anderson as his legal adviser. Mr. Boynton's liability
was not great, and Mr. Anderson advised him not to re-
sist the proceedings, as, by doing so, he would be playieg
a very dangerous game. Tne defendant, however, de
termined to proceed, and on the 14th of November, 1843.
he retained Mr. Anderson for the purpose of delemlini.;
him with re,pect to a scire facias which had issued out
against him. Mr. Anderson conducted the defence
through various stages, and he now sought to recover
his costs which had been taxed in the Court of Chancery.
The question was, whether the defendant was liable to
pay the costs which had been incurred subsequent to
the consolication rule.

His LORDSHIP was of opinion that the question in
this case was a question of law, and not ox tact, and coil'',
not, therefore, be decided here.

The Learned Counsel ou both sides observed that with
mane years back causes had been sent down for tries
which could not be tried here, the questions to be sub-
mitted being mere questions of law.
Upon this it was directed that a verdict should be en-
tered for the detendant, and the plaintiff have leave to
move in the court above.

The assizes tor this county terminated at an early hour
this afternoon. To-morrow will be the commission- da)
at Durham.

WESTERN ClltColT.—Aseter, July 23.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Chart Justice WILDE
and a Common Jury.)

DINGLIT V. BASER.

Mr. Sergeant Kinglake and Mr. Greenwood were
counsel for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Crowder and Mr.
Heldsworth for the defendant.
This was an action of seduction ; bat of course was
brought in the usual form by a father to recover cow
pensetion in damages for the loss of service of hie
daughter.
I:ru, the statement of the Learned Counsel for the
plaintiff, as borne out by the tealmuny of the Plaintiff's
uaUghters bate runowieg may be gathered as the facts of
the case :—.

The Rlaintiff rented several turnpike-gates between
Kingsbudge and Dartmouth. He had a family of six
daughters ; Mary Dingle, the one alleged to have
been seduced, being the second. She was about
r 7 years of age at the time when seduced. She
Collected the tolls at one of her father's turnpike-gates.
• The defendant was a wine and spirit merchant az Dart
mouth, and was about 33 years of age. It appeared that
in the
Dartmmoouth nth of -January, 1845, there was a public ball
at , which was promoted by the friends an
unsuccessful candidate for the representation off the
borough of Dartmouth. The defendant was one of the
stewards. Mary Dingle and two of her sisters went to
that ball, and the defendant was exceedingly attentive
to her, and danced with her nearly the whole of the even-
ing. She frequently saw the defendant during the fol-
hs and he conducted himself in the most
which she resisted,
rloeswpiengctfaluloiit manner' towards her, but at length he at-
tempted to take liberties with her,
promised solemnly he would not repeat the at-
and he
When she me
tempt.
similar attempts. On the 15th of
Aprili,onlsB,46h,e
evening, and
:heads: accidentally met the defendant in the
streets of Dartmouth, abouwtalicinewiitnh
the
him and ake
he asked her to take a .
it up. She did so, and,
, alter having proceeded
some short distance, the
-defendant took from his
pocket, a bottle, which he said contained Chun-
Mae .ale ; he also took out a tumbler. He
poured out a glass of the ala and prevailedonherikrnto
drink acme of it. The defendant himse-i not drink
any, did , that
any, and the girl asked him the reason ; he replied
he had been drinking brandy and water, and smoking
cigars, and if he mixed the liquor it would have a bad
effect. He threw the rest of the liquor away. The girl
was-then about to leave him, but he begged her to stop.
alleging that he had suraPtting Particular to say to her.
sh*Soon.felt herself completely stupifird, and lost all re-
aollentioi; When ehe came to her senses she -found her-
E,elf in the defendant's stable, and in that,itable.her ruin
was accomplished. After thia thaw the-parties fiCquently
met, and ultimately the 'girl :became pregnant. Irpon
her informing. the:. 4iffindeuit of this, he said; " Never
mini, you site 11,114-Ter want anything—l will never de- . -,,!!t::. ~ • _ _ - ... •