The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-07 00:00:00

• •
ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT—Lewes, Aug. 5.
The assizes for Sussex terminated this morning. The
hutim-ss was lighter than was ever known in this county,
the whole of the civil causes not having occupied one
day. There were a good many criminal cases, but they
were all of the ordinary description, and none of them
presented any feature of interest to justity a report. The
Commission for Surrey will be opened on Monday, at

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.— Warwick, Aug. 4.
(Before Lord DENMAN and a Common Jury.)
COOPER V. BARBEL

Mr. Whitehurst, Q.C., and Mr. Hayes for the plaintiff;
Mr. Humfrey, Q.O , fur the defendant.
Mr. WurrEnuasT stated that the plaintiff was a
jeweller and picture-dealer residing at Birmingham, and
the defendant, a gentleman of fortune, living in the
neighbourhood. The action was for a promissory note
for 761.. drawn by the defendant in favour of a man
named Barnett, but it vas dishonoured when due. Bar•
nett he described as being a gentleman of property, The
defendant pleaded the note was given for money won at
cribbage, and upo❑ a gambling transaction. It would be
fur the defendant to prove that; but whether it was
given for a gambling transaction or not, was immaterial
to his client.

Mr. John Smith an attorney, residing at Birmingham,
proved the handwriting to the note Knew Barber's
handwriting well. Was not aware that he was a great
cribbage player. He knew he did not win of witness.
Mr. IlustFaEr.---Very likely; you are an attor-
nev.—(A laugh.)
The witness further stated that the "gentlrman of
fortune," Barret, was formerly a clerk to Mr. Rush-
worth, an attorney. Had since bad ten thousand pounds
left him. The (Mendant stated that he had lost the
money fairly, and would pay its but all he wanted was
time.

Mr. HumFREY then addressed the jury.
Edward Barnett examined, stated that he knew the de-
fendant very well. He had played at cards with him at his
own house, and at Mr. William Colt more':. The bill f 6 ,r
75/ was fur money lost at cribbage. There was another
tor 761., for money lent to Barber. Had had several bills
of him. Might have had bills for money won to the
amount of 2004 Witness was formerly a clerk to Mr.
Hushworth, an attorney. Cooper is a p.cture• dealer,
living in Bradford-street, Birmingham; a regular factor.
Hid purchased pictures of him for about 18 months.
Had been in the habit of-playing-with Barber for two
years. The pictures he bought at CO,,per's amounted to
about 2501. He gave Cooper five other bills drawn by
Barber for 201., 401., 501., 701. and 764 They were for
payments of pictures. The witness produced the in-
voices. Cooper did not know witness was in the habit
of playing with Barber, to the best of wituess's know-
ledge.

Mr. lI(JNFREY here admitted he could not hope to
resist the plaintiff's demand.
Verdict for the plaintiff, 76/. 10s.
Aug. 5.
MARKHAM V. HOPKINS.

This was an action to recover 5661. for work and la•
bour, &c.

Humfrey, Q. C.. Mr. Mellor, and Mr. Rowett,
were for the plaintiff; Mr. %Vhitehurst, Q.C., and Mr.
Wilmore, for the deft-ndant.

The plaintiff is an engineer residing at Northampton;
the defendant, a gentleman of fortune living in London.
He was a managing director of the London and B:r-
-mingham Extension, and was present when the orders
were given to the plaintiff to check the plans of certain
competing lines in Parliament. It was for this and at-
tending as a witness before a committee of standing or-
ders that formed the charge in question.—Verdict for
plaintiff.
The case was taken as an undefended cause on Friday,
with a similar result, but upon affidavit that an accident
alone had prevented the attendance of the attorney, it
was allowed to be retried.

RITTLESTON V. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.

This was an action to recover 1101., the value of some
stone, upon which the Company claimed to have a lien.
The plaintiff is the official assignee of a bankrupt named
Wooliton. It turned upon a point of law. Verdict for
the plaintiff, subject to a motion.