The Sun.
London, England, 1823-08-14 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MAIDSTONE, TUESDAY, AUG. 12.
(Before Mr. Baron GRAUAU and a Special Jury.)
!lAN NAM, ESQ. a. MOCXET T.
Mr. MARItrAT stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff
was a gentleman. residing at Brionston.house, in the parish of
St. Peter in the Isle of 'Planet. The defendant was a farmer,
who occupied a field immediately adjoining Mr. fiannam's
rookery, for disturbing, which the present action was brought.
The defendant justified his conduct,. alleging that the rooks
entered his field, and were the means of doing great mischief
to his canary cron
thust it. would annear the defotnfain
gretuatro ....oumotive, -nr
partilt disputes. The plaintiff also Complained of a bean-boy or
*me crow, which had been placed on a tree in the defendant's
field, near the plaintiff's grounds, with the pretended view of
frightening the rooks from the field ; hut there were some cir-
cumstances connected with it whieji induced him to believe that
it was intended as an effigy to represent the plaintiff'. It would
appear, however, that the defendant could have no reason for
any apprehension that his crop was in danger, inasmuch as it
was known as a fact that that seed was too small and too hard to

be subject to the depredations of these birds.
Thomas Wall, examined, by Mr. GURNEY..—I am master
of the workhouse of St. Peter s, and receive the profit of the
labours of the poor. In March last, a pauper of the name of
Senates was employed by the defendant to keep away the rooks
from his field ; he had a gun and some powder and shot given
him, while he was there. Phintirs and defendant's land are
only separated by a road. I went on the spot one morning, and
observed Semites firing at the rooks, though I did not see a bird
in the field. lie stood close in the corner of Mockett's

Cross-examined--I did not see him load with shot; he had
shot with him.

Josh. Sandwell, examined by Mr. ADOLPIIIIS.-1 was ser-
vant to plaintiff last March. A bean.boy was put up in a tree
in defendant's field, and a stage or platform was erected below
it for Scoates to the from. lie used to be there as soon as it
was light in the morning, and stayed there until it was thric.
lie used to lire front the stage or platform, and when he was
tired of that he came down into the field.

. ,
Mr. ADO Lyn us—He quitted the Hoge,. and went into the
green-room.
Examination continued.--As soon as the roolcs came into the
rookery, he tired at them. The platform was 136 yards from
the plaintiff's house, and close to the rookery. There* have
been 100 nests less this year than there were last year.
Cross-examined--I have been in the plaintiff's family 3tl
years: I have lived in the house seven years. The plaintiff
has very much increased the number of rooks. I think there
are many more rooks now than there ever had been before.—
The bean-boy was done over with brimstone.
Mr. Man RY AT.—lt may be proper to observe, Mr. flan-
nam's mansion-house is called Bramston.hall.

Hobert Tomlin, examined by Gu itNEY.--.-tn the spring
of 1022, the defendant called at iny house, and said the plain-
tiff had been very troublesome, and his rooks equally also, and
it was his intention to destroy them. He said he should soak
pests in arsenic, and scatter them on the land,..and the rooks
would dm p front the trees by dozens in the night. I remon-
strated with him, and told him it would be discovered. He
said then he would obviate that,. by soaking tares, which were
of the same colour as the land, and they would not be seen.
He came again to me last spring, and surd the rook fight had
begun this year, and he would do for the plaintiff by destroy...
ing his rooks. I and my father occupy a good deal of land, on
which I grow some canary seed. Ido not consider that the
rooks do any harm : I think they do good.
Several other witnesses were called, who proved' that the de-
fendant was in the constant habit of 'firing- at the plaintiff's
rookery, and that rooks did no injury whatever to'canary seed,
but were of advantage to the fields by destroying the vermin.
A witness was called, who stated that he had sent thousands
of young rooks to London, for which he received four shillings
per dozen.
Mr. WALFORD, with whom was Mr. Crum, submitted
to his Lordship, whether such an action as the present was
maintainable ? Here there was no proof that this was an ancient
rookery.
Two or three witnesses were called back, who stated that
rooks had been in the habit of building their nests in the trees
in question for upwards of 30 years; there had, however, been
some years when there was none. One of the witnesses said he
considered the pFaintitrs us a very handsome rookery.
Mr. Baron Ha A/IA St asked the defendant's Counsel, if it
could be shewn by any authority that rooks were fru. nature',
anti protected by law ? and whether it had ever been held that an
action was maintainable for :disturbing the place of their resort ?
He did not recollect any instance of an action being brought for
disturbing a rookery, though he was aware heronries were
protected, they being considered as constituting a part of coun-
try sports.
Mr. WA Lronn quoted part of an Act of Parliament, passed
in the reign of lienry'Vlll'. which recited, that, " whereas an
same a wonderful and maritllons
reap in
innutherable quantity of rooks, choughs, Ste- destroy and con-
as well in the sowing as in the reaping o the same, and also
cause a marvellous decay of the roofs of barns, stacks, &r." it
was therefbre enacted, " that every one should' do his best to
of of all. kind's;
destrny? them, under pain of atnercement, and the taker thereof
should be paid twopence per dozen."

Mr.l3uniekY intimated that the statute referred to had been
repealed by the 18th of Elizabeth. The act which had been
quoted, and the subsequent one by which it bud been repealed,
were similar to an act of Elizabeth, which was passed to re-
strain the excessive making of malt, and another, the object of
which was to restrain the growth of that pernicious plant called
hops; both these acts were to be found in the same voluniee
The objection was not allowed.
Mr. WA eroa» addressed the Jury on the part of the de-
feudant. The present action, he said, was one: Which verified
the adage, that " the play was hardly Worth the candle," It
was one originating in a vinrlictive feeling against the defen.
dant, Mr. Hannam's poorer neighbour. 'What the defendant
had done had been only in self-defence for when it ap-
peared that die pleintiff"s rooks came to breakfast, dine, tea,
and blip in Mockett's field, anti made their exit in the
evening, without paying the reckoning, he did conceive the
defendant was fully justified in taking sueli steps as would
for the future prevent their unwelcome visits. If the no.
tion Was correct that these birds did no harm, to the fat-
»mei fields, but. ein the cant:Wry much good, hovi did it
happen that in their rustic rambles at seed tune and harvest,
they saw in almost every field a lad designated the crow.
boy.? Another question was, by what medium *ere they
to estimate the damages HoW were they to ascertain the
value of the rooks? It had been said, that the young rboks
were sent to the poulterers in London. It was true, be believed.
that it sometimestappelied, the unwary cockney had now and
then ate a took in his pie, whilst he fancied he was eating
pigeon. It was the' first time in his life be had ever heard of a
rook-pie ;-he entainly felt no great inclination, to Unite one. He
had, in his Walks now and then through the fields, met a stray
rascal gibbetted on a pole, us an example to his thievish com-
panions, and he always thou oughtlhat was the'only use made of
them. He might with propriety ask his taetr.
".,e4 Friend ,
Mr.
Gurney, if he had ever eaten a young rook e
Mr. Baron Onalialt.—Not knowingly, 12 11,9. re say.
Mr. \VALI, °an' wa.s quite certain hisfrientr had no &dm
his podlteret had ituposed on him it crow fbr n pigeon, lie
really believed that the imposition often was practised ; the
rook was sent to town in hiii suit' gawk, there he was picked,
p"derell, Imartfretl, sari perhaps the cockney's sagacity was
tumble to detect the fraud. He saw no mode of calculating the
value of these rooks. If, however, even that were practicable,
he trusted that, this being evidently a litigious and vexatious
shit, they would give a verdict for the deft:edam
Mr. Haven GRAHAM, in summing up, told fhb Jury ie was
a question, he believed yet to be decided, whetter a root,—
could be considered as actionable property. rt was for
them
to estimate what damages the plaintiffhati sustained by tummy
either his- pleasure or profit abridged by the act of the defend'.
ant. It was a matter of regret to bun, that a case of this
kind had been brought there at a large exPenee, and that
gentlemen of their description shottld have been called from
tbeir homes to• decide such a question. Unquestionably, a
marked motive of malignity was manifest in the conduct Which
had been pursued by the defendant ; it was unneighbouriv
estimate had been
anti improper: bat still the fiction appeared frivolous, for they'
even had no grounds given them whereby to estimate the (ma.
turn of
that Tooke eggs wine inter.
itolatUtrglellfetllitijirielyt:l°ttelltoif fleurnil'ifngY(ainn it. rooks to make
pies.. It was the first time be had heard of such a practice;
delicatel he thought, that
lie believed it sometimes happened
mixixiwith plover's egg*, and sold as of the latter description.
that they
Those palatcs could not be very
were partaking
could eat it rook-pie, under the lanien
of a ; tt was only a strong stomach, he fent:hal that

twboeuyl denbueldd i sepalocsnedl
calculate
eo
tebnecoduanmtetrigessu,diit at
breexpatstb ;:nt
gTb ei t onlycorrect
boneeen, wouldkilled ,beanhdy.teb(emnsidgeivriinngg tthbeen;nbnetritrofwroobakt sitwbhadichbhevaill
proved the poulterers paid for them, viz". four shillings per
dozen. It was for them, however, to consider if such a mode of
estimating the damage was proper or not.
Mr. ADOLPIIIIS.—One witness has proved that there were
100 nests less this year than last r supposing there to he four
young rooks produced front each nest, that would be 400, at
48. per dozen.
Mr. WA f•roftft—My Lord, my friend Mr. Adolphus makes
no allowance for rotten eggs.
verdict kir the plaintiff—Damages "'elf round a
SHARPE, CLERK, v. POLHILL,
This was an action brought by the present incumbent of the
vicarage of Debtlyng, to recover from the executor of Mr. Pol-
hill for certain dilapulations to the vicarage-house, and two
augmentation farms, which had taken place during the life-
time of Mr. Polhill die late incumbent, who had held the living
for upwards of 40 years.
Witnesses were called, who proved that 5201. would be neces-
sary to make good the dihipidations.
serjeant Lawns, tior the defendant, contended, that
although the defendant had suffered judgment to go by default,
as to the dilapidation of the vicarage-house, yet in respect
of the augmentation farms, the action could not be sup-
' potted. With reference to the estimated sum necessary for
the repair of the vicarage-house, he submitted that in no
equitable view of the question, could the claim now set up
be sustained. The vicarage-house had not for many years
previous to the time of the late Mr. Polhill, ever been inhabited
by the incumbent ; and he could show by respectable testi-
mony that a much less sum would put it in a reasonable state
of repair. Witnesses had been called from London,. who were
unquestionably gentlemen of experience and character as archi:
teas; but he had no difficulty in saying that acountry builder
could form as accurate ,a judgment upon the subject: The
other side had Mr. Ware, who, he believed, was the architect
of some noble families. He knew that he had been employed
in the erection of the Burlington-arcade, of which he must say,
however it was admired by some, was not according to his
taste. He did not approve of that style of architecture; he was
told it was the Grecian it might be so, but he mold assure
the Jury it was not the Vitravrau.
Several witnesses wrre called to prove the value of the'vicar-
age, with the sums which had been empended by Mr. Polhill
from year to year for repairs.
Mr. MAR RYA,IT replied.
Mr. Baron Ort A Ham summed up, arid the Jury found a
verdict for the plitintiff...-Damagem 375/. 6s. 2d.