The Sun.
London, England, 1824-08-28 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDFORD, FRIDAY, Aua. 27.
Before Mr. Baron GRAHAM and a Special Jury.
THE KING V. MONTAGU AND OTHERS.

This was an indictment against the defendants for a nuisance.
The obfect of the indictment was to determine whether the Cor-
partition of the City of London had, in virtue of its Conservancy
of the river Thames, a right to clear a.water.way from the
Thames to thelledway, through a creek called Gauntlet Creek,
which separates the Isle of Grain from the main land, in the
county of Kent. The alleged nuisance was in widening and
deepening the creek in question, at a spot called Grain Bridge,
by the removal of a considerable quantity of soil, and thereby
destroying a land communication between the island and the
adjacent country. The indictment had been originally found
in the county of Kent; but, with a view to a disinterested and
impartial trial, it was agreed that the question intended to be
raised should be determined by a Jury of this county. In order
that the Jury might understand the question, most of them had
had a view of the /ova in quo.
The trial of the case commenced yesterday afternoon. A
great body of evidence was adduced on both 'Odes, but though
the question involved was one of considerable importance, yet
it would be quite unnecessary to enter into a minute detail of
the evidence given by each witness.
Mr. Baron Git ALIA at summed up the case to the Jury, and
dwelt upon the circumstance that, according to the charter, the
City Of London had only a right of conservancy as far as the
mouth of the creek in question, and that only with respect to
the preservation of the fishery of the Thames ; and also to the
extraordinary fact that the Corporation had never, on any firmer
occasion, attempted to exercise an authority to the extent now
insisted upon. Big Lordship also observed, that there was by
no means any sati,.'actory proof, within living memory, that the
spot in qUestion was even a navigable water.way ; and it nut,
then, coupled with the other circumstances, the defendants hod'
no right to do the act charged against them as a nuisance.
The Jury immediately found the defendants Guilty, thereby
negativing the jurisdiction of the Corporation of London over
the spot in question.—The trial ended today at one o'clock.

OXFORD CIRCUIT:—GLOTICESTER, Au 0,20:
(Before Mr. Justice PARK.
WILLIAM PANTING (11Y HIS GUARDIAN) v. Lotrs HAN-
COCK, WILLIAM
,sTlrr, DANIEL' WHITE, AND NEHE-
MIAH
This was an action of trespass, bronght against the defend-
ants for taking and seizing the plaintiff's meat, &c. The de-
fendants pleaded, first, the general issue ; and secondly, that
they were justified in the seizure, as two of the defendants were
duly authorized, in their character of Carnal, or Cardinals of
the market (appointed by the Lord of the Manor), to seize the
meat and destroy it, as it was unwholesome, offensive meat, and
unfit for the use of man ;- and the other two defendants acted as
the servants of the Cardinals.

. _
Mr. Carus opened the pleadings, anti Mr. Lin)Low stated
the case to the Jury. '1 he plaintiff was a young man under
age, who sued by his guardian. Ile was by trade a butcher,
and a short time before December last, he commenced business
at Dursley Market. Two of the defendants are butchers' and
it would appear that they, being jealous of the increasing busi-
siness of plaintiff, conspired to injure him, by seizing his meat
and burning it in the open market. It would be proved that
the meat was sweet and good, by evidence that could not be
questioned. The consequence of the illegal conduct of the
defendants was, that the plaintiff's trade had been ruined, anti
he had been compelled to leave the place, and begin business
elsewhere. lie (Mr. Ludlow) called• upon the Jury to give
such damages as would be a fair compensation to the plaintiff
for the injury his feelings and character had sustained; and pro-
ceeded to call the following evidence:— •
Samuel Davies and Ephraim Mainston proved that a fat pig,
and in good condition, was sold to the plutntiff, and he drove it
home. _

Richard Taylor.—l am a butcher; I reside at Dursley. On
December 6, 1 had a stall near Panting's • and saw the joints
of a pig 0i) his stall. It was a porker, and was very. fat, fine,
and good meat, I know Daniel White, he is a butcher, and
keeps Dursley Market; so is Nehemiah Stiff. James Hancock
and William Stiff are the two cardinal* of the market. The
cardinals do not wear a particular dresi in the market. On the
morning of Oth December, I saw the defendants go to the plain.
tiff's stall. White took up a piece, of the plaintiff 's pork, and
put it towards Hancock's nose, who smelled it, and said " that
don't stink." White took up another piece, and said, " Don't
that stink ?. Take it away ; if you don't I'll fins you." The
four defendants then put the meat into a basket, and took it
to a place called the Hull.ring, and after a long preamble they,
put fire to it and horned it.
Mr. Justice Panx.—Did they•make a speech ?
Mr. CAMPBELL.—Thrx passed sentence befofe execution.
Witness.—The people raised an outcry, and crid Shame !"
at seeing such nice meat burnt. I thought they would not
have done such a thing, but they did at last.- Several persons
looked at the meat; a. Mr. Woodward and Mr. Dimery exa.
mined it, and said it was good meat. 'Soue of the meat was
afterwards produced before a Magistrate, and all present said
it was good meat. The defendants said nothing. Mr. Pur-
nell the Magistrate said the meat would speak for itself, it was
very good.
Cross examined by Mr. TAUNTON.—The defendant might
say before the Magistrate that they seized the ineat, because it
was bad ; I don't remember ; 100 people were present at the
time of the meat being burnt, and some of the people seized it
and took it away.
John French--I have been a butcher 21 years; I saw the
pig in Mr. Panting's shop on 6th Dedember ; I knew the pig
came from Davies'; It was fine meat; Panting had no other
pig at that time ; I saw the defendant, Daniel White, come up
to the stall, and ask if that meat was good 10 I said, "yes, it
is." Ile said, " I think not," and went away. Soon after-
wardS the four defendants Came up to the 'plaintiff's 'stall, and
seized the meat and carried it off. Paating was crying and
making lamentation. I took a spare rib from the meat, as the
defendants were carrying it away. The plaintiff said, at that
time, that he, bought the pig of Mr. Davies. White said it
was a pig that had met with an accident coming from Mouees..
ter market. The spare rib I took was very good indeed; Mrs.
'oodward took a bit of the belly part ; I said it is a shame to