The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, March 18.
The Lord Chancellor sat in Lincoln's Inn Hall to-day, an,
heard appeals.

'!'he jury found the prisoner guilty of larceny, and
sentence was deferred.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON disposed of several of the corn
mon jury causes, but none of the details were of an 3
intere,t.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Dorchester, March 16.
James Mart was indicted for maliciously setting on fire a
certain stack of furze, the property of David Slade, at
Lvtchett Minster.

-Mr. You Men was counsel for the prosecution, and Mr.
Stock for the prisoner.
It appeared th*t the prosecutor had a rick of furze made
about a week before the sth of November. On that day, in
the evening, it was seen to be on fire, and was entirely con-
sumed. The prisoner at that time was at work at the Dor-
chester and Southampton Railway at Lytchett. A few days
bel.re the sth of November the prisoner told a fellow-labourer
that a man named Sw•atlield had persuaded him to set this
rick of furze en fire, and he should do it. The party to whom
he told this recommended him not to do it; but he said he
w3uld. The prisoner repeated his intention en the afternoon
of the sth of November, and proceeded towards the spot
where the rick was, and it soon after was on fire. The next
morning a man said to him, "Well, you've done it, then ;"
and he said he had; that be had struck four lucifers on the
top of the box and then set it on fire, and before he could
get across the field the rick was all in a blaze. The men
all left the employ in a day or two, and went to Portsmouth.
The one to whom the prisoner had told this returned again
in about a month, when he gave information. Another
labourer, who was present when the prisoner uttered his
threat, and afterwards stated what he had done, confirmed
the evidence of the first labourer. The prisoner was appre-
hended on the sth of December. When the prisoner was in
custody, he said it was no use to deny it—he had done it,
and Swaflield had persuaded him. The prisoner had always
borne the character of being a quiet, hard-working lad,
eighteen years of age.
For the prisoner it was urged that it was a mischievous
frolic, for the purpose of making a bonfire on the sth of
November.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
Sentence—three months' imprisonment.
NISI PRIUS COURT.
The whole of the day has been occupied in trying a right
of way cause, in which all the points have been left for the
consideration of the Court above.

Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Fitzherbert were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Steck for the defendant.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.— Worcester, March 16.
(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)
Joseph Brooks, aged 29, labourer, was indicted for com-
mitting a rape upon Ellen Banks, on the 18th of July last.
The evidence is of course unfit for publication.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and the Learned Judge
sentenced him to transportation for life.
John Howel was charged with committing a like crime
upon the person of a little girl, only eight years old.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced
to transportation for life.
Both these crimes were committed in the parish of St.
Andrew's, in this city. a spot infested by the most notorious
characters.

(Before Mr. Baron PLATT.)
Harriett Allard, said to be only 15, and the daughter of a
very respectable farmer, was indicted for shop-lifting.
Though this trial lasted four hours, the facts were very
similar to those which form the usual features in such cases.
It appeared that the articles alleged to have been stolen
by the prisoner were found in her basket, but the possession
of one article, a veil, was accounted for by the prisoner, who
said she considered she had bought it, but had not paid for
it, as she was going to call again, when a balaEce would he
struck of the accounts between herself and the prosecutor's
wife, the prisoner 11..ving been accustomed to sell butter and
eggs on market-day when she visited the city. The only al-
ternative whereby to account for the other articles being found
in the prisoner's basket was that the prosecutor's wife had
placed them there. It was proved she had the opportu-
nity, and also had on a former occasion made a false charge
against a person. The jury adopted this view, as suggested
in a very able defence by the prisoner's counsel, and ac
quitted her.

- The verdict WAS received with applause, and it is right
to add that the prisoner received an excellent character
from the clergyman of her parish, who had known her from
infancy.

Mr..Selfe appeared for the Crown, and Mr. Traddlestone
defended the prisoner.

viz 17.
CSiirRNC. T.Ti—ndpare Ilon. Sir
ThAeHnDigLhtA
Thomas Coltman arrived in this town about two o'clock, and
opened the commission for this county with the usual for-
malities, after which their Lordships proceeded to attend
divine service at St. Mary's Church.
. The Lard Chief Justice took his seat in the Nisi Prins
Court, at ten o'clock this morning; and Mr. Justice Coltman
at eleven, in the Crown Court.
The list presented fourteen causes for trial, of which four
were marked for special juries; but of these three are by the
same plaintiffs, and one only, if any, of them will be tried.
They are said to be in respect to the right to hold races here.
The other is an action of ejectment—Doe, dem. Thornhill v.
Thornhill—by the devisee against the heir-at-law, to recover
possession of a very valuable property on the ground of the
insanity of the test.itor, in which Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., is
coming down specially, and which will be commenced to-
morrow morning, and will probably last two long days.
Of the common jury cases, four are cross actions, two only
of which will therefore be tried. The list was thus reduced
to 10, of which five were at 4 o'clock disposed of, and the
remaining three will he, probably, in the course of the day.
The calendar is num.erically, but not otherwise, heavy, there
being 59 prisoners and 45 cases for trial ; of which two are light
cases of burglary, two, also light, cases of robbery, one o
breaking and entering a dwehing-house, three of breaking
and entering warehouses, one of forgery (no evidence ()tiered),
two of stabbing and wounding, one of a felonious assault upon
a woman, one of horse-stealing, and two of riot and assault
upon peace-officers.
Down to 4 o'clock to-day nothing had occured in either
court justifying any report.
In consequence of the anticipated duration of the great
special jury cause above referred to, for three days at least, the
commission day at Leicester has been postponed from Friday
till Saturday, on which latter day only the borough business
will be taken. The county business will, therefore, commence
there on Monday morning next.

NORFOLK CI He Urr.—Cambridge. March 16.
NISI PRIUS COURT.--(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a
Special Jury.)
MICHAEL AUGUSTE'S GATHERCOLE, CLERK, V. MULL.
Mr.-GuNsinG ( with whom was Mr. Sanders) stated, that
this was an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover
damages from the defendant for the publication of a libel of
and concerning him in the character of vicar of Chatteris,
in the Isle of Ely, to which the defendant had pleaded only
the general issue. The plaintiff was a clergyman of the
Established Church, and had lately been presented to the
vicarage of Chatteris, a parish situate in the fens of Cam-
bridge, and containing a population of 5,000 souls. In early
life lie had by great assiduity attained to great learning, and,
though born and educated a Dissenter, had at the age of 25
embraced the doctrines of the Established Church. In this
character he had obtained the high opindai of all who knew
him, and having recently been presented to this piece of pre-
ferment, which was said to be worth 2,0001. per annum, he
had set about the dicharge of his high duties with great zeal
and industry. This was a most difficult task, and he had not
been so fortunate as to escape the attacks of the press; for
on the 7th of January in the present year there ..ppeared in
the Nonconformist,
a weekly dissenting journal, an article
which formed the groundwork of the present action. That
publication was the sole property of the defendant, who was
a well-known Dissenter, a man of talent and wealth, and who
had recently contested the borough of Southwark, in opposi•
tion to Sir W. Molesworth. When the article in question
appeared, the plaintiff applied to the defendant for the name
of the author, and that king refused, he had no alternative
left but to appeal to a jury for protection from what he could
not but feel to be a most wanton, unprovoked, and malicious
attack upon him in his sacred character, and one which
could only have l.roceeded from the worst personal motives,
though the writer professed to aim at the Church rather than
its unworthy minister. In that article the plaintiff was
spoken of as " the notorious Gathercole," " the apostate
Gathercole," and a " twice-convicl d libeller." But, though
true it was that Mr. Gathercole had, whilst engaged in con-
ducting a periodical, been indicted and wads criminally re-

ARCIIX/I V. HopsoN.
The further arguments on this part heard appeal occupied
his Lordship the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S CV URT, March 18.
(Before the VICE-CILANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
DUNCOMBE V. LEWIS AND LEVY.
This case stood on the paper to-day by speci.l arrangement.
Mr. Burin I, at the sitting of the Court, stated that, so
far as the defendant Mrs. Levy was concerned, he wouli not
trouble his f lend .11r, Wakefield to addmis the Court, as the
answer, he was thaind to confess, was too strong for him. As
to the other defendant, Lewis, he had not seen his answer,
'but he would look into it by to-morrow, and tell his Learned
Friend, Mr. Stuart, what he thought of it.
Mr. STUART thought that his Learned Friend, Mr. Bethel!,
would find the answer of Lewis as strong as that put in by
Mrs. Levy.
Mr. WAKEFIELD—Then the order, as far as Mrs. Levy is
concerned, is made absolute?
Mr. BEIRRELL—Yes, and as to Lewis the case will stand
over till to-morrow.

ANDREWS V. Loetwoon.
The remainder of the morning was occupied with the
arguments in this case, which came before the Court upon a
plea to a bill of revival. The question in the case is merely
one relating to the practice of the Court, and presented no
feature of the least public interest.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT.—Lewes, March 17.
The commission fbr the county of Sussex was opened
en Monday at this place. The business is rather
heavier than usual at these assizes, there being fifty-five
persons for trial, many of whom are charged with the
most serious offences, and fifteen causes are entered on
the civil side, five of which are special jury casts. Lord
Chief Justice Denman commenced the business of
the assize this morning in the Crown Court, and Mr.
Baron Alderson at Nisi Prius.
CROWN COURT—(More the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.)
William Benslcad, 23, a young man of respectable
appearance, and formerly a clerk in the Post-office at
Chichester, was indicted for feloniously stealing a gold
watch, the property of her Majesty's Postmaster-
General.

Mr. Russell Gurney, with Mr. Clarkson, conducted
the prosecution, and Mr. Johnson defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the testimony adduced that, in the
beginning of last December, a watchmaker, at York,
named Bell, sent the watch in question, which was a
flat gold one, enclosed in a letter, to a person named
Apted, in the service of the Duke of Richmond, at Good
wood. The letter never arrived at its proper destina-
tion, and, on a representation being made upon the sub-
ject to the autherities of the Post-office, inquiries were
set on foot, which resulted in the apprehension of the
prisoner. It was then ascertained that almost immedi-
ately after the period when the letter, with the watch,
would in due course have arrived at Chichester, the
prisoner took the watch in question to a watchmaker,
and emplyed him to remove the hands from it and place
others upon it of a different description, at the same
time telling him not to say anything about it. When
the prisoner was taken into custody the watch was found
in his po3iessien, and was now clearly identified.
Mr. JOHNSON, on behalf of the prisoner, urged that,
as there was no proof of the letter having been seen in
his possession, it was probable that the watch might
have fallen from it accidentally, and that he was not
proved to be guilty of the most serious part of the
charge.