The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-10 00:00:00

HASTEN V. CAREW AND etkOTTIER.

This Was an action of trespass against two Magiitratcs o
Somersetithire, which was tried before the Lord Chief Jus
tice at the last Assizes for that county. The plaintiff was a
farmer, of whose farm and house the defendants had given
possession to the landlord, tinder .'i7 George 111., c. 32, on
the ground that six months' rent was in arrear, and that the
premises were deserted. .On the production of the record of
the adjudication, it appeared, that the Magistrates did not act
oft inforniatlon on oath ; and a question was therefore raised,
whether theß prnceedingS, on the face of this instrument,
appeared to be legal. The Lord Chief Justice reserved the
point; and the case went to the Jury, who found a verdict
for the defendants.
Mr. Sergeant WaDE now moved for a rule to show cause
Why there should not be a new trial—first, on the point re.
served; and secondly, on the ground of misdirection of the
Learned Judge. The plaintiff was the occupier of a farm,
at a rent of more than 2001. a-year, and claimed certain
allowances to be deducted from the rent, which the land.
lord refused to sanction: When the first half-year's rent
became tine, he distrainetl, and sold the crops, part of which
were purchased by the tenant. In order, no doubt to induce
.the landlord to make the allowances, the plaintiff quitted the.
ferm-house as a residence, and removed with his family to a
cottage near, leaving one, if not two servants, to sleep in the
house, and continuing to cultivate the farm. In the winter,
of cotiirse there was not much on the land ; but he continued
to spread'mannie, and to sell his turnips, wheti the defendants
authorised the landlord to take possession under the statute.
The Lord Chief Justice in summing up directed the Jury to
consider whether the acts done were bona fide, or were merely
with It view of preventing the operation of the statute.
The Lona), CIIIEF JUSTICE said, he thought 'he directed
the Jury to consider whether the tenant really intended to cul.
tivate the farm, or only used shifts and contrivances to defeat
the remedy of the landlord.
Mr. Sergeant ILDE regretted that he .had no note of the
charge, and believed the Learned Chief Justice left the Jury to
consider the motive with which possession was retained, instead
of the mere fact whether he had possession or not. The sir.
cumatance of his removal was, no doubt, calculated to make a
great impression on a special jury of landlords ; but still the
the question was—whether the premises were or were not
deserted.
The CounT granted the rule to show cause, observing that
the counsel for the defendants, on the argument, would be at
liberty to urge that the record of adjudieuticin utiappealed
against WAS a conclusive answer to the action.

FORD V. VRIAIROSE•
This was an action for slander on a viterinary surgeon, tried
at the last Bury Assizes. There-were several counts In the de-
claration; but only one of them was supported by the evidence.
This count alleged that the defendant, intending to cause it to
be believed that the plaintiff' had committed murder or man-
slaughter, spoke these words—" I think the presebt business
ought to have the most rigid inquiry. He murdered his first
wite—that is, he administered improper medicines to her for a
certain complaint, which was the cause of her death." On
this count the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff with 201.
damages.
etohnetrasurhysetuquentortl
Mr. S•ronxs now moved for a rule to show cause why this
verdict should not be set aside, on tire ground that the words
; !n
nut iittaselwf whole force
seti,m ufrdortelti,w,
iemrepinioedt tahemsousbtjectof
serious acchtaiorgne.
expectation, pwrohdictltlcznedigthhet
mean that the platntilf innocently and benevolently atinlini.
awte"reedxlPuleatilnictilnesawwaYhibclY,
death of his wife. .

-the COUIIT held that there was zio ground for disturbing
the verdict. Granting that the import of the words was doubt.
ful, they must consider it was ascertained by the Jury, who
were to judge of the. intention with, which they were spoken._
If they were incapable of the construction given to them in thy
pleadings, the declaration would be bad; but if they were ca-
pable of such construction, the Jury were to judge it they bore
it. They had so judged, and the Court could not bold that
they had arrived at a wrong conclusion. They therefore re-
fused the rule.

VAOSSEIL v. LIWIS.
Mr. IiVSBELL moved for a rule to chew cause why the ver-
dict for the defendant, obtained at the great Sessions for the
county of Pembroke, should not be set aside, and a new trial
panted. This was the first ease of motion for new trial under
the recent Act relative to actions tried in Wales. It was an
'action on the case for the diversion of a watercourse, whereby
the plaintirs barn had been flooded, toad ins hay had sustained
injury. Proof was given of such injury in one particUlar
instance, to which the *huff was restricted by the form of the
pleadings; but the Learned Chief Justice told the Jury he tild
not knew how they could estimate the damages., or if the plain..
tailed sustained any damage ; and also directed them to con.
eider whether the water did not enter the barn through holes,
which the plaintiff- should have mended,. lie therefore
grounded his motion on these directions of the Learned Judge.
The Cooly' granted &rule to shew cause.

_
SMITH IA THOMAS.
This was an action by an attorney of the county of Mon.
triogth,.for words affecting him in his professional character.—
The defendant suffered judgment by default, and a writ of
ip-
quiry was awarded to assess the damages. At the execution of
the inquiry, the counsel for the plaintiff called no witnesses,
but merely address ed the jury on the effect of the words as they
were contested on the record. The counsel for die defendant
also aildnAsed the jury, but celled no witnesses. The Under.
Sheriff read the declaration, and the jury returned a verdict for-
-40/.
- Mr. I,i:Dtow, for• the defendant, now moved to set Wile
the inquiry; on the ground that as the plaintiff adduced no evi.
dence to dhow the circumstance' under which the wants were
spoken he was entitled only to nominal. damages. It he "hose

WICKS V. CLITTTEKWOKTII.
Mrs Sergeant TADDY mewed for a rule to show cause why' w •
new trial should not be bad in thiS case.—lt Was an action fOr
false imprisonment, tried before Mr. Baron Gralnuit at thelase
Sumnler Assizes. The plaintiff complained of having bet,*
taken up under a warrant of the defendant,„ and carried to St.
Alban's goal, and.confined there seven days. The Jury gave
a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 351., bemg 51. the each day
he was confined. The defendant had bet.n committed underthe
Statute, 5 Geo. 111. cap. 14, sec. 3, which was passed to protect '
fisheries. It enacted, that in case any person should take; kill,
dr destroy any fish in any inclosed ground which should be
private property, he should pay a penalty of five pounds, or
be committed for any time not eiceeding five months. The
water in which the plaintiff seas found fishing, was of the above
description.. It was surrounded by houses and inclosures •es
cept it;i, dile part only, where the high road passed over it
,;' and
the only enclosure against the high road Consisted of what was
called the battlements of the bridge. There was a railing on
one aide the bridge,. and this person was fonnd fishing over the
railing. On his being taken before Mr. Clutterworth. he was
of opinion it was fishing on prliate ground, and he coniicted
the plaintiff in the penalty of fiie pounds, and required him to
pay it. Instead of paying it, he chose to go to prison, rubbing
his hands and saying, this was what he wanted. ltlr. Clutter-
worth sent him in d post chaise— •
Chief Justice BEST.—Perhaps that was what lie alluded to.
• Mr. Sergeant 'FADDY moved for. a new trial on the gtound
that the conviction having been put in' evidence, by which Mr.
Clutterworth found this to, be private property, and which stated
it to be indosed grndiids t therefore the Conclusive, and no ac.
tion could be maintained: The Jtidge, however, at the vial,
heckled otherwise, notwithstanding the cure e tit Batton v.' Kin.
niard, and Grey v. Cookson, Ist Court granted*
rule to show cause.
The ItEcoßOl:n enteted the Court a few minutes before three
o'clock, attended by the new Lord' Mayor and the Sherifis.—...
After they had appointed an attorney"to maintain the rights and
privileges of the City of London in that Court for the ensuing
year, the Recorder invited their lordships to dine with the City,
in Guildhall, at five o'clock. Their Lordships gave the usual
answer to this annual invitation' by shaking their heads with a
very slow Lind solemn Motion.
•

ARCHES' COURT, Nor. 9.
TISE OFFICF. OF TIM. JUDGE PHOAIoTED 3:41r DAM/ ANIA
NOCKOLDS AGAINAT WILLIAMS.
In this case articles had been exhibited against Mr. WU-
hams, a parishioner of 'rring, in Hertfordshire, for having ou
certain day in the month of August, 1U23, during the pelebtst.
lion of divine service, stood up in the parish chttrelt of Tring,
and read aloud a paper, being a summons of a vestry to con.
eider of the propriety of displacing the then ihurchwardensand
substituting others in their stead. To these articles, an allega-
tion, in the way of a defensive plea, was offered on behalf of 34%,--
Williams. On the question of admissibility,
Sir Joint Ntnitot.t. said, thin suit had been brought
against Mr. 'Williams for the creation of' a disturbance
in the church during divine service, and for baring-
thereby committed the offence at' brawliok. The articles
hnd been already
.admitted, under the opinion of this Court
that a private parishioner hnd no right to read such a notice
as the one in question in such a place during the solemnise.
tion of public warship. Now this allegation admitted the facts
charged, but went into some statement of circumstances that
ustified, as the patty conceived, the measures he had taken.
Theb 'it became a uestion whether the effect of this allegation
amounted either ton complete justification, or to such in exten-
uation of the offence as might bear on the question of astts.ift
the ultimate jotigment of the Court; costs being a consideration.
dm immaterial character in a criminal suite. The Learned
Judge then stated, that' the minister had been applied to by Mr.
William* to read the notice, out of which this suit arose ; thatch*
minister had refused to read it; and yet that, in defiance M it
were. of his refusal, Mr. Williams bad proceeded to do that
which no private person was empowered to de for that the
minister alone was the judge of what was proper to be .done in
meth e matter in the church. The Court was thereat* if
opinion, that the allegation tended rather to aggravate than
either to justify or even to extenuate the offence tibial it Was
not attempted to be denied that Mr. Williams hiiti committed.
In rejecting the allegation, the Court could uot forbear siskrost.
ing to Mr. Williams, that after the adinissions he lied mad.,
it was obviously his interest to close the suit with AS little delay
as possible. As long as it continued, it was impossible to avoid
very heavy additional expencely . which it was much better at
once to shorten.

GREGO V. GREGO.
This it a suit for restitution of conjugal right's, promoted by
a husband Against his wife t it has bees dependint; in the Ocia•
sittory Court of London ever since 1819 ; and row come* op to
this jurisdiction on an appeal front a grit ance---uatnely, that
the Judge of the Court below had refused to rescind the wade.
sion of the cause, and to hear a certain affidavit read, et the
prayer of Mrs. Gregg's proctor.
On behalf of Mr. Gregg, his proctor appeared under protest,
complaining that the prireertins of the other paity's appeal re-
lated to an act of the Court below, subsequently to which act
the party had repeatedly complied with assignations and orders
of Wilt Court, and consequently that this appeal could nut by
entertained.
After a long discussion on this question of practice,
Sir .lOu? NI QllOl.l. observed, Overt was strong i &cation,
at pretcnt, of designed delays on Mrs„Orcjoesi part ; but upon
this point he contd.' rot present offer no decided Opinion. In sun-
sequence of not having laid before him oho prneess of. the. CMG':
be the Learned Judge ecauplainca that ho proceeded titular
some difficulty, and much uncertainty. He entertained the
appeal, however; over-ruled the protest ; and ileclatsil shpt,
this Court would retain the principal cause.

'l'm Dott or Wrta.tNoiros.,—When thiti dis-
tinguished warrior, who is Governor of Plymouth Arsenal, re.
ceived the '.Freedom of this Borough some years since, on his
return from the GM UM c:I
Ito his earflap near which ,K4* ,
veteran, named Parker, now residing in tins town, . who had
fotight under his Grace in alt his campaigns), he remarked to s.
Gentleman near him how extremely warm the day was upon
which Parker exclaimed aloud, " net so hot a day as we bait,
smnyanLuJeda,d
fwaltp,itit,lle!nuyiehuiwun,oep:setettoin,oeyro.
hlieeciityela:recil arionerdiej id: jai
doplzi..c.
dt:Atoni
satitih health l.tlpsi,
tAallertlika!
,t;_krnnfe,a: looked.:ir
Keit!,
lbtootliaancikeet
tews
nei:tilt:a:
twetinetrietattotliiiendfloirifrnei,tettilu EaueeriltoifentAlVedystoTothrie,
dtpistacrurve:l7.....wiitih,:irt.
. EARL or WitcroN.—lt is a fuct almost forgot-
father ; resided some years. abroad, working as a journeymar4
Herr:S 41;71,rokt:r.A)T. I 0 N Bt FOUL
dent took place lately at the colliery of
Ilalbeath, near Dun
fermllne. Two boys, of about 12 years or age, were diverting
themselves near a new pit, which had been excavated only a
few fathoms. One of the boys threw down the bonnet of his
companion, who descended in the bucket' to recover it I and,
having staid longer than was expected,. the other boy owuDg
himself dwwn by the bucket rope to see what was the matter,
when both of them were suffocated in the bottom of the pit, by
the choak damp, which was afterwards asaertsisted to be three
feet in depth.