The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-17 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Bedford, March 15.
The commission for this county wai duly opened on
Saturday by Air. Justice Coleridge, who presides on the
Crown side, where there are 34 prisoners, including
several heavy cases—one of murder, two of arson, and
the like number of offencris against the person. The
entry of causes embraced the following :
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Chief Baron Poixout and a
Special Jury.)
RENSHAW V. MORTON.

Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. O'Malley appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Worledge and Mr. Wells for the de-
fendant.

This was an action of assumpsit on an alleged war-
ranty of certain seed tares, to which the defendant
rleaded non assumpsit. The parties to this cause are
respectively a farmer and a,seed-dealer ; and the ques-
tion was whether the agent of thelatter, on the occasion
of his aching forty loads of the article in question to the
plaintiff, had warranted that they were " seed tares, and
they would grow." It appeared that the seeds had
been offared for sale by the agent of the defendant to a
person named Newman, at St, Neot's market, in July,
1845, in the presence of the plaintiff, and had then
stated that they were " seed tares ;" that "he had sown
them himself in his own garden, and that they had come
up as thick as hail." After this the plaintiff bought forty
:oads of them, relying, as he now contended, on this repre-
,entation, and subwquently sold them with a warranty
to various parties in his neighbourhood, who
had all come upon the plaintiff for compen-
sation ; for, as the Learned Sergeant stated, " the
event proved that they might as well have sown their
lands with marbles." On this a negotiation was entered
into between the plaintiff and the defendants, and the
matter was referred by them to a common friend, who
" cut the Gordian knot" by according that they should
each bear one-half of the loss sustained by the plaintiff
in satisfying the demands made on him by his customers
fur compeni,ation. This decision, however, was not
acted upon, it would seem, for the present action was
entered for trial at the last assizes, and tried before a
common jury, who gave a verdict fur the plaintiff. That
decision was even more unpalateable to the defendant
than the previous one, for his case was that his agent
had no authority, in the first place, to warrant the tares;
and, in the second, that he had not, in fact, made any
such representation to the plaintiff as was set up as the
foundation of this demand. He accordingly moved the
Court above for a new trial, on the ground that that
verdict was not warranted by the evidence, and the
Court being of that opinion sent the cause down again
for trial, when the defendant struck a special jury. On
the former occasion the agent was not called on either
side, and the plaintiff being driven as it were to do so
now, put that person into the box, who very soon put
the plaintiff out of court, for he distinctly swore that he
never had warranted the tares either to the plaintiff or
to any one else, and that he had no authority from the
defendant to do anything of the sort. In this stage of
thf, case, _ _

The Learned CnIEF BARON interposed, and directed
the plaintiff to be called, and so ended the great seed
tare case of St. Neot's.

There being no other civil cause remaining, his Lord.
ship sat to try prisoners.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
Thomas Docherell, aged 27, and Thomas Lancaster,
30, were charged with stealing a quantity of oats, the
property of Thomas Pratt, of Houghton Regis, on the
4th inst.

The jury found both the prisoners Guilty, and they
were sentenced to tour months' imprisonment.
Isabella Buckett, aged 17, was charged with felo-
niously setting fire to a barn of William Gery, Esq.
The prisoner was a domestic servant of Mrs. Peck,
the tenant of the prosecutor, and appears to have done
the act imputed to her without any assignable motive.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.—Sentence
deferred.

OXFORD CIRCUIT---Worcester, March 13.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Sergeant GASELEE

CHESHIRE V. HARE.

This case occupied the Court from eleven to half-past
five, and attracted considerable attention in consequence
of the contradictory evidence adduced. It was an action
by the endorser of a bill of guarantee for 301., dated
the 27th July, 1846, payable in three months from date,
drawn by a Mrs. Hadley. upon and accepted by the de-
fendant. The only plea was a denial of the acceptance.
Mr. Whateley, and Mr. Gray appear,d for the plain-
tiff; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Godson for the
defendant.

The plaintiff is a wholesale grocer in Birmingham;
the defendant, an attorn-y at Kidd-rminster. On the
evidence for the plaintiff it appeared that about the
middle of July last, Mrs. Hadley called upon the
plaintiff and asked to be supplied with goods, and on
his expressing a wish to have some guarantee, referred
him to the defendant, to whom the plaintiff immediately
wrote a letter, inquiring if he were willing to give • his
guarantee for goods to be supplied to Mrs. Hadley to
the extent of 30/. To this letter it did not appear that
any answer was returned; but the bill in question was
given soon afterwards to the plaintiff, who tn.w produced
it, together with a letter which bore no date, but was
acknowledged to be genuine, from the defendant to Mrs.
Hadley, stating that he enclosed her his acceptance for
301., and that if that would not do she might write again.
On the bill becoming due, and being presented at the
defendant's banker's, be was sent for, and declared it:to be
a forgery; and, in answer to an application from the de-
fendant's attorney, sent a letter stating that the accept-
ance was a gross forgery, and that he had a letter from
the drawer admitting it to be so. To a written appli-
estion for a copy of this letter and information as to
where Mrs.. Hadley was to be found, no answer was re
turned. To another letter, written some weeks after-
terwards, again asking for a copy of the letter, and it he
denied having given Mrs. Hadley his acceptance, he
answered by simply stating that any one on behalf of
the plaintiff might see the letter at his office at Kidder-
minster. Thereupon the action was brought.
For the defendant six witnesses were called, who
swore that to the best of their belief the signature to the
acceptance, though like the defendant's, was not genuine.
One of these witnesses was a solicitor in whose office the
defendant had served part of his articles. The defendant
further proceeded to prove the actual forgery of the bills,
and for this purpose called a man who deposed to having
purchased a bill stamp for Mrs. Hadley; and a young
woman, named Louisa Dobbs, a dress-maker, who stated
that, during the last summer, she was at Mrs. Hadley's
house in Birmingham, and saw Mrs. Hadley, in looking
over a number of letters, find a letter of Mr. Hare's,
corresponding with the one put in by the f laintiff, and
that she read the letter to the witness, and said that it
was jest what she wanted ; that about five weeks after-
wards, being again at Mrs. Hadley's house, she saw her
with a letter of Mr. Hare's before her, and that she was
practising on a sheet of paper the writing of his name ;
and that she then saw her sign his name to the acceptance
on a bill (which, however, she could only identity by its
haring the stamp on it), and then enclose the bill and
letter in another letter.

The plaintiff produced evidence in reply.
The verdict was for the plaintiff.
As Tuesday is fixed for opening the commission at
Stafford, and so much of the civil business remains un-
disposed of, it is said that Mr. Justice Maule will assist
at Nisi Prins, au& Mr. Sergeant Allen will preside in the
Crown Court.

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice MAULE.)
None of the cases tried in this court yesterday wer.
worth mentioning.
James Campbell a sailor, about 17 years of age, was
put to the bar, charged with having set fire to a barn at
Pirwen, on the 4th of February last.
Mr. Huddlestone conducted the prosecution. The pri-
soner had no counsel.

It appeared that on the morning in question the pri-
soner was met some distance from the barn by a man,
to whom he very coolly said, " I have been setting the
blacksmith's barn on fire, and if anybody wants me I
shall be found going on the road to Worcester." The
magi saw smoke proceeding from the barn, and
having gone to it and found it on fire, told what the pri-
soner had said, and he was pursued and foiled according
to hii undertaking, going on towards Worcester. On
being eaptur.,d, and asked why he should burn a, poor
man's house in that way, he said, " If he had known in
time it was a poor blacksmith's, he would not have burned
it, but he thought it was some old farmer's," and added,
" that he did it in ord-r to get into gaol, as he could not
otherwise obtain any food." A box of lucifer matches
was found on him; and it appeared that he had fired a
barn also in Gloucestershire, for which he was to be tried
at the next assizes for that county.
He was found Guilty, and sentenced to ten years' trans-
portation.

ThomAs Haines, the ground bailiff of a mine called
the Round Gri en Colliery, in the parish of Hales Owen,
in which an explpsion of fire-damp took place on the
17th of November last, whereby nineteen men lost their
lives. was put to the bar to answer an indictment charg-
ing him with the manslaughter of James Shakspeare.
one of those persons. The indictment alleged that it
was his duty t keep the mine properly ventilated and
free from fire-damp and other noxious gases; that he
well knew that the deceased and other persons were at
work in the mine, and that he, notwithstanding, neglect-
i.ng his duty in that behalf; allowed an accumulation of
tire-damp to talce place, and that the consequence was
an explosion and the death of the deceased.
Mr. Iluddlesione and Mr Hooper appeared for the
prosecution; Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Whitmore for
the defence.
Verdict, Not Guilty.
It would seem the mine-owners are not sufficiently
of the heavy liabilities they ate subject to, if sued
uur!er the provisions of Lord Campbell's Act, passed last
session,' which gives a right of setter' for compensation
to the relatives of a party killed by the " wrongful act"
of another.
After disposing of the above case and another for riot
his Lordship assisted at nisi prius, and Mr. Sergeant I
Allen tried the remaining Crown cases.